This group

[FMurtz]

Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with pages
and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
smattering of loons

[AndyW]

On 06/07/2018 05:13, FMurtz wrote:
> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with pages
> and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
> smattering of loons

This is the only group where I use filters and I have only started using
filters in the last 3 or 4 years.
The group has really changed since the brexit vote.

The signal to noise ratio has really crashed through the floor.

Andy

[Norman Wells]

On 06/07/2018 07:11, AndyW wrote:
> On 06/07/2018 05:13, FMurtz wrote:

>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with pages
>> and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
>> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
>> smattering of loons
>
> This is the only group where I use filters and I have only started using
> filters in the last 3 or 4 years.
> The group has really changed since the brexit vote.

We'll have to cancel Brexit then. This group hardly featured in the
hundred days of debate before the referendum. If it had been, I'm sure
the result would have been different.

At the very least there should be a re-run.

[Fredxx]

On 06/07/2018 07:50, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 06/07/2018 07:11, AndyW wrote:
>> On 06/07/2018 05:13, FMurtz wrote:
>
>>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with
>>> pages and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
>>> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
>>> smattering of loons
>>
>> This is the only group where I use filters and I have only started
>> using filters in the last 3 or 4 years.
>> The group has really changed since the brexit vote.
>
> We'll have to cancel Brexit then.  This group hardly featured in the
> hundred days of debate before the referendum.  If it had been, I'm sure
> the result would have been different.
>
> At the very least there should be a re-run.

You're perhaps one of the worst offenders, along with many remoaners.

There really is no need to cancel brexit, just the obsession many seem
to have with the subject. There is nothing new posted, just a
regurgitation of old news.

[The Todal]

On 07/07/2018 11:39, Fredxx wrote:
> On 06/07/2018 07:50, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 06/07/2018 07:11, AndyW wrote:
>>> On 06/07/2018 05:13, FMurtz wrote:
>>
>>>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with
>>>> pages and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
>>>> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
>>>> smattering of loons
>>>
>>> This is the only group where I use filters and I have only started
>>> using filters in the last 3 or 4 years.
>>> The group has really changed since the brexit vote.
>>
>> We'll have to cancel Brexit then.  This group hardly featured in the
>> hundred days of debate before the referendum.  If it had been, I'm
>> sure the result would have been different.
>>
>> At the very least there should be a re-run.
>
> You're perhaps one of the worst offenders, along with many remoaners.
>
> There really is no need to cancel brexit, just the obsession many seem
> to have with the subject. There is nothing new posted, just a
> regurgitation of old news.


Question Time on BBC regularly takes questions about Brexit and nobody
ever says anything new and original about it.

Maybe it's time to ban all further discussion. Or at least, stop asking
the plebs for their heartfelt but ignorant views. They are only
parroting what they've heard from pundits, both pro and anti Brexit.

[Fredxx]

On 07/07/2018 13:38, The Todal wrote:
> On 07/07/2018 11:39, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 06/07/2018 07:50, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 06/07/2018 07:11, AndyW wrote:
>>>> On 06/07/2018 05:13, FMurtz wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with
>>>>> pages and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
>>>>> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
>>>>> smattering of loons
>>>>
>>>> This is the only group where I use filters and I have only started
>>>> using filters in the last 3 or 4 years.
>>>> The group has really changed since the brexit vote.
>>>
>>> We'll have to cancel Brexit then.  This group hardly featured in the
>>> hundred days of debate before the referendum.  If it had been, I'm
>>> sure the result would have been different.
>>>
>>> At the very least there should be a re-run.
>>
>> You're perhaps one of the worst offenders, along with many remoaners.
>>
>> There really is no need to cancel brexit, just the obsession many seem
>> to have with the subject. There is nothing new posted, just a
>> regurgitation of old news.
>
>
> Question Time on BBC regularly takes questions about Brexit and nobody
> ever says anything new and original about it.
>
> Maybe it's time to ban all further discussion. Or at least, stop asking
> the plebs for their heartfelt but ignorant views. They are only
> parroting what they've heard from pundits, both pro and anti Brexit.

Apart from the time surrounding the miners strikes and union strife, I
can't recall anything so polarising in UK politics.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <***@mid.individual.net>, The Todal
<***@icloud.com> writes
>On 07/07/2018 11:39, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 06/07/2018 07:50, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 06/07/2018 07:11, AndyW wrote:
>>>> On 06/07/2018 05:13, FMurtz wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with
>>>>>pages and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
>>>>> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
>>>>>smattering of loons
>>>>
>>>> This is the only group where I use filters and I have only started
>>>>using filters in the last 3 or 4 years.
>>>> The group has really changed since the brexit vote.
>>>
>>> We'll have to cancel Brexit then.  This group hardly featured in the
>>>hundred days of debate before the referendum.  If it had been, I'm
>>>sure the result would have been different.
>>>
>>> At the very least there should be a re-run.
>> You're perhaps one of the worst offenders, along with many
>>remoaners.
>> There really is no need to cancel brexit, just the obsession many
>>seem to have with the subject. There is nothing new posted, just a
>>regurgitation of old news.
>
>Question Time on BBC regularly takes questions about Brexit and nobody
>ever says anything new and original about it.
>
>Maybe it's time to ban all further discussion. Or at least, stop asking
>the plebs for their heartfelt but ignorant views. They are only
>parroting what they've heard from pundits, both pro and anti Brexit.

The only difference between the Remainers and the Leavers is that the
former very occasionally offer do some new thoughtful analysis, and
occasionally make suggestions for overcoming the ever-appearing problems
- while the latter usually simply chant the same old stuff as they have
been for the past two years.
--
Ian

[Vidcapper]

On 07/07/2018 17:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> The only difference between the Remainers and the Leavers is that the
> former very occasionally offer do some new thoughtful analysis, and
> occasionally make suggestions for overcoming the ever-appearing problems
> - while the latter usually simply chant the same old stuff as they have
> been for the past two years.

Why do Remainers seem to think that every one of the 17.4m Leaver voters
should have had a precisely formulated plan for Brexit, before we'd even
voted?

Individual voters aren't required to produce their own manifestos when
voting in General Elections - they just make a choice & expect
politicians to then get on with it - how is Brexit any different?


--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[Ian Jackson]

In message <U6i0D.1027625$%***@fx40.am4>, Vidcapper
<***@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>On 07/07/2018 17:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>> The only difference between the Remainers and the Leavers is that the
>> former very occasionally offer do some new thoughtful analysis, and
>> occasionally make suggestions for overcoming the ever-appearing problems
>> - while the latter usually simply chant the same old stuff as they have
>> been for the past two years.
>
>Why do Remainers seem to think that every one of the 17.4m Leaver
>voters should have had a precisely formulated plan for Brexit, before
>we'd even voted?

Uh? 'Formulated plan'? It's unlikely that many leave voters had the
faintest idea of the consequences of leaving the EU, or how we could go
about it.

The Leave vote of many was simply a protest vote - protesting about a
whole load of things that had little or nothing to do with our EU
membership - for example "I voted to give the Government a good kicking"
and "I simply voted for change".

For those whose vote did have some connection to the EU, the best they
usually come up with is "to get rid of all the laws and regulations that
have been imposed upon us" - but they can rarely cite one which actually
affects them, and that they would want to get rid of. While all my
Brexit friends can immediately cite the essentially mythical 'bent
banana' law, they can't really think of anything else (hence James
o'Brien's favourite question!).

The only reason that even Remainers can sympathise with is probably "To
stop uncontrolled immigration" - but even then, many Leavers can't
immediately distinguish between EU and non-EU immigration.
>
>Individual voters aren't required to produce their own manifestos when
>voting in General Elections - they just make a choice & expect
>politicians to then get on with it - how is Brexit any different?

As has been explained many times, foolishly electing a duff government
into power rarely has many immediately dire consequences - and things
can start to be rectified in five years time (or, in some circumstances,
even earlier). In contrast, it's obvious that the Brexit vote could well
rapidly start to wreck much of the British business and commerce that
has developed over the past 40 years as a result of the UK being part of
the EEC and EU. Once wrecked, it will never recover.
>
>

--
Ian

[Ian Jackson]

In message <u6m0D.213788$***@fx35.am4>, Vidcapper
<***@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>On 08/07/2018 09:08, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> In message <U6i0D.1027625$%***@fx40.am4>, Vidcapper
>> <***@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>> On 07/07/2018 17:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The only difference between the Remainers and the Leavers is that the
>>>> former very occasionally offer do some new thoughtful analysis, and
>>>> occasionally make suggestions for overcoming the ever-appearing problems
>>>> - while the latter usually simply chant the same old stuff as they have
>>>> been for the past two years.
>>>
>>> Why do Remainers seem to think that every one of the 17.4m Leaver
>>> voters should have had a precisely formulated plan for Brexit, before
>>> we'd even voted?
>>
>> Uh? 'Formulated plan'? It's unlikely that many leave voters had the
>> faintest idea of the consequences of leaving the EU, or how we could go
>> about it.
>
>But we aren't required to know that, that's the point - we make a
>choice and it's up to the politicians to implement it.
>
>In fact, that is specifically stated in the gov'ts taxpeyer-funded
>Remain propaganda sheet :
>
>See the section : A Once In A Geberation Decision
>
>'This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.'

Most should have realised that the Government would have extreme
difficulty in fulfilling their promise in a way that would not be
ruinous for the UK. Unfortunately, 17.4M either didn't (and still don't)
realise - or, as a few have said, they didn't care what happened as long
as we got out of the EU.
>
>> The Leave vote of many was simply a protest vote - protesting about a
>> whole load of things that had little or nothing to do with our EU
>> membership - for example "I voted to give the Government a good kicking"
>> and "I simply voted for change".
>
>Except that this wasn't about the government!

EXACTLY! Some Leavers openly admit that their vote had little (or even
nothing at all) to do with us being in the EU. Instead, they were
essentially treating the referendum as just another election - and they
were casting an anti-Government / anti-Establishment vote (which is NOT
what the referendum was meant to be for).
>
>> As has been explained many times, foolishly electing a duff government
>> into power rarely has many immediately dire consequences - and things
>> can start to be rectified in five years time (or, in some circumstances,
>> even earlier). In contrast, it's obvious that the Brexit vote could well
>> rapidly start to wreck much of the British business and commerce that
>> has developed over the past 40 years as a result of the UK being part of
>> the EEC and EU. Once wrecked, it will never recover.
>
>And Remainers wonder why we call it 'Project Fear'...

Instead of putting your fingers in your ears and singing 'la la la',
maybe you SHOULD start being just a little bit frightened?
>
>

--
Ian

[Yellow]

On Sun, 8 Jul 2018 13:20:09 +0100, Ian Jackson
<***@g3ohx.co.uk> posted:
>
> In message <u6m0D.213788$***@fx35.am4>, Vidcapper
> <***@yahoo.co.uk> writes

> >> As has been explained many times, foolishly electing a duff government
> >> into power rarely has many immediately dire consequences - and things
> >> can start to be rectified in five years time (or, in some circumstances,
> >> even earlier). In contrast, it's obvious that the Brexit vote could well
> >> rapidly start to wreck much of the British business and commerce that
> >> has developed over the past 40 years as a result of the UK being part of
> >> the EEC and EU. Once wrecked, it will never recover.
> >
> >And Remainers wonder why we call it 'Project Fear'...
>
> Instead of putting your fingers in your ears and singing 'la la la',
> maybe you SHOULD start being just a little bit frightened?

My only concern is that the power of the remainers in government is
leading us to being members of the EU in all but name, so the "no say
but follow all the rules" option.

It is the worst of all options and I am... I guess bemused is the
word... that this is looking a likely outcome.

You cannot blame those of us who voted to leave the EU for this because
it is most certainly *not* what I voted for.

On the bright side, at least not being a member of the EU anyone
protects us from the horror that is political and monetary union, which
is up there on the list of what I did vote for and as for the rest? If
we really do go down this path it can always change in the future and
probably will.

[Vidcapper]

On 08/07/2018 13:20, Ian Jackson wrote:

>>
>> But we aren't required to know that, that's the point - we make a
>> choice and it's up to the politicians to implement it.
>>
>> In fact, that is specifically stated in the gov'ts taxpeyer-funded
>> Remain propaganda sheet :
>>
>> See the section : A Once In A Geberation Decision
>>
>> 'This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.'
>
> Most should have realised that the Government would have extreme
> difficulty in fulfilling their promise in a way that would not be
> ruinous for the UK. Unfortunately, 17.4M either didn't (and still don't)
> realise - or, as a few have said, they didn't care what happened as long
> as we got out of the EU.

We expect those we pay fat-cat salaries to, to get the job *done*!
>>
>> And Remainers wonder why we call it 'Project Fear'...
>
> Instead of putting your fingers in your ears and singing 'la la la',
> maybe you SHOULD start being just a little bit frightened?
>>

The only thing that frightens me is the possibility that Brexit might
still be thwarted somehow.


--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[Ophelia]

"Vidcapper" wrote in message news:ofq0D.980250$***@fx43.am4...

On 08/07/2018 13:20, Ian Jackson wrote:

>>
>> But we aren't required to know that, that's the point - we make a
>> choice and it's up to the politicians to implement it.
>>
>> In fact, that is specifically stated in the gov'ts taxpeyer-funded
>> Remain propaganda sheet :
>>
>> See the section : A Once In A Geberation Decision
>>
>> 'This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.'
>
> Most should have realised that the Government would have extreme
> difficulty in fulfilling their promise in a way that would not be
> ruinous for the UK. Unfortunately, 17.4M either didn't (and still don't)
> realise - or, as a few have said, they didn't care what happened as long
> as we got out of the EU.

We expect those we pay fat-cat salaries to, to get the job *done*!
>>
>> And Remainers wonder why we call it 'Project Fear'...
>
> Instead of putting your fingers in your ears and singing 'la la la',
> maybe you SHOULD start being just a little bit frightened?
>>

The only thing that frightens me is the possibility that Brexit might
still be thwarted somehow.

==

With a bloody remainer PM what else can we expect.

[pensive hamster]

On Sunday, 8 July 2018 17:46:12 UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
> "Vidcapper" wrote
[...]
> The only thing that frightens me is the possibility that Brexit might
> still be thwarted somehow.
>
> With a bloody remainer PM what else can we expect.

But The People voted for her ...

[Ophelia]

"pensive hamster" wrote in message
news:d4a86219-7dcc-40cc-a4d1-***@googlegroups.com...

On Sunday, 8 July 2018 17:46:12 UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
> "Vidcapper" wrote
[...]
> The only thing that frightens me is the possibility that Brexit might
> still be thwarted somehow.
>
> With a bloody remainer PM what else can we expect.

But The People voted for her ...

==

And now they know better ... bloody traitor. Gove too!

[Ian Jackson]

In message <***@mid.individual.net>, Ophelia
<***@gmail.com> writes
>
>
>"pensive hamster" wrote in message
>news:d4a86219-7dcc-40cc-a4d1-***@googlegroups.com...
>
>On Sunday, 8 July 2018 17:46:12 UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
>> "Vidcapper" wrote
>[...]
>> The only thing that frightens me is the possibility that Brexit might
>> still be thwarted somehow.
>>
>> With a bloody remainer PM what else can we expect.
>
>But The People voted for her ...

But only indirectly.
>
>==
>
>And now they know better

The same people also voted for Brexit - and now they know better!

> ... bloody traitor.

>Gove too!
>
Just imagine if no one had sacrificed their sincerely-held principles in
order to step in to fill the vacuum and stop Boris becoming PM!


--
Ian

[Yellow]

On Sun, 8 Jul 2018 10:27:05 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
<***@hotmail.co.uk> posted:
>
> On Sunday, 8 July 2018 17:46:12 UTC+1, Ophelia wrote:
> > "Vidcapper" wrote
> [...]
> > The only thing that frightens me is the possibility that Brexit might
> > still be thwarted somehow.
> >
> > With a bloody remainer PM what else can we expect.
>
> But The People voted for her ...

We do not get to vote for who is the Prime Minister.

[Mike Swift]

In article <***@News.Individual.NET>, Yellow
<***@none.com.invalid> writes
>> > The only thing that frightens me is the possibility that Brexit might
>> > still be thwarted somehow.
>> >
>> > With a bloody remainer PM what else can we expect.
>>
>> But The People voted for her ...
>
>We do not get to vote for who is the Prime Minister.

Indeed, this isn't the USofA, I had high hopes when she became Prime
Minister, sadly she's turned out to be worse than Blair and Brown, and
that's saying something.

Mike

--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange

[Ophelia]

"Mike Swift" wrote in message news:***@ntlworld.com...

In article <***@News.Individual.NET>, Yellow
<***@none.com.invalid> writes
>> > The only thing that frightens me is the possibility that Brexit might
>> > still be thwarted somehow.
>> >
>> > With a bloody remainer PM what else can we expect.
>>
>> But The People voted for her ...
>
>We do not get to vote for who is the Prime Minister.

Indeed, this isn't the USofA, I had high hopes when she became Prime
Minister, sadly she's turned out to be worse than Blair and Brown, and
that's saying something.

Mike

==

Ain't that the truth!!!

[BurfordTJustice]

"Vidcapper" <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ofq0D.980250$***@fx43.am4...
: On 08/07/2018 13:20, Ian Jackson wrote:
:
: >>
: >> But we aren't required to know that, that's the point - we make a
: >> choice and it's up to the politicians to implement it.
: >>
: >> In fact, that is specifically stated in the gov'ts taxpeyer-funded
: >> Remain propaganda sheet :
: >>
: >> See the section : A Once In A Geberation Decision
: >>
: >> 'This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.'
: >
: > Most should have realised that the Government would have extreme
: > difficulty in fulfilling their promise in a way that would not be
: > ruinous for the UK. Unfortunately, 17.4M either didn't (and still don't)
: > realise - or, as a few have said, they didn't care what happened as long
: > as we got out of the EU.
:
: We expect those we pay fat-cat salaries to, to get the job *done*!
: >>
: >> And Remainers wonder why we call it 'Project Fear'...
: >
: > Instead of putting your fingers in your ears and singing 'la la la',
: > maybe you SHOULD start being just a little bit frightened?
: >>
:
: The only thing that frightens me is the possibility that Brexit might
: still be thwarted somehow.
:
:
: --
:
: Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[pensive hamster]

On Sunday, 8 July 2018 11:57:32 UTC+1, Paul Hyett wrote:
> On 08/07/2018 09:08, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Vidcapper writes
[...]
> >> Why do Remainers seem to think that every one of the 17.4m Leaver
> >> voters should have had a precisely formulated plan for Brexit, before
> >> we'd even voted?
> >
> > Uh? 'Formulated plan'? It's unlikely that many leave voters had the
> > faintest idea of the consequences of leaving the EU, or how we could go
> > about it.
>
> But we aren't required to know that, that's the point - we make a choice
> and it's up to the politicians to implement it.

Well, yes, that is the point - let the decision be made by people
who may not have had the faintest idea of the consequences of
leaving the EU, or how we could go about it. What could possibly
go wrong?

The Brexiteer argument seems to boil down to "it was a democratic
referendum decision which should be implemented, irrespective of
whether many of the voters had the faintest idea of the consequences
of their vote".

> In fact, that is specifically stated in the gov'ts taxpeyer-funded
> Remain propaganda sheet :
>
> See the section : A Once In A Geberation Decision
>
> 'This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.'
>
>
> >
> > The Leave vote of many was simply a protest vote - protesting about a
> > whole load of things that had little or nothing to do with our EU
> > membership - for example "I voted to give the Government a good kicking"
> > and "I simply voted for change".
>
> Except that this wasn't about the government!
>
> >
> > As has been explained many times, foolishly electing a duff government
> > into power rarely has many immediately dire consequences - and things
> > can start to be rectified in five years time (or, in some circumstances,
> > even earlier). In contrast, it's obvious that the Brexit vote could well
> > rapidly start to wreck much of the British business and commerce that
> > has developed over the past 40 years as a result of the UK being part of
> > the EEC and EU. Once wrecked, it will never recover.
>
> And Remainers wonder why we call it 'Project Fear'...

Currently it seems pretty much neck-and-neck between
Project Fear and Project Wishful Thinking.

[BurfordTJustice]

"Vidcapper" <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:u6m0D.213788$***@fx35.am4...
: On 08/07/2018 09:08, Ian Jackson wrote:
: > In message <U6i0D.1027625$%***@fx40.am4>, Vidcapper
: > <***@yahoo.co.uk> writes
: >> On 07/07/2018 17:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
: >>>
: >>> The only difference between the Remainers and the Leavers is that the
: >>> former very occasionally offer do some new thoughtful analysis, and
: >>> occasionally make suggestions for overcoming the ever-appearing
problems
: >>> - while the latter usually simply chant the same old stuff as they
have
: >>> been for the past two years.
: >>
: >> Why do Remainers seem to think that every one of the 17.4m Leaver
: >> voters should have had a precisely formulated plan for Brexit, before
: >> we'd even voted?
: >
: > Uh? 'Formulated plan'? It's unlikely that many leave voters had the
: > faintest idea of the consequences of leaving the EU, or how we could go
: > about it.
:
: But we aren't required to know that, that's the point - we make a choice
: and it's up to the politicians to implement it.
:
: In fact, that is specifically stated in the gov'ts taxpeyer-funded
: Remain propaganda sheet :
:
: See the section : A Once In A Geberation Decision
:
: 'This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.'
:
:
: >
: > The Leave vote of many was simply a protest vote - protesting about a
: > whole load of things that had little or nothing to do with our EU
: > membership - for example "I voted to give the Government a good kicking"
: > and "I simply voted for change".
:
: Except that this wasn't about the government!
:
: >
: > As has been explained many times, foolishly electing a duff government
: > into power rarely has many immediately dire consequences - and things
: > can start to be rectified in five years time (or, in some circumstances,
: > even earlier). In contrast, it's obvious that the Brexit vote could well
: > rapidly start to wreck much of the British business and commerce that
: > has developed over the past 40 years as a result of the UK being part of
: > the EEC and EU. Once wrecked, it will never recover.
:
: And Remainers wonder why we call it 'Project Fear'...
:
:
: --
:
: Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[pamela]

On 11:57 8 Jul 2018, Vidcapper wrote:

> On 08/07/2018 09:08, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> In message <U6i0D.1027625$%***@fx40.am4>, Vidcapper
>> <***@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>> On 07/07/2018 17:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The only difference between the Remainers and the Leavers is
>>>> that the former very occasionally offer do some new thoughtful
>>>> analysis, and occasionally make suggestions for overcoming the
>>>> ever-appearing problems - while the latter usually simply chant
>>>> the same old stuff as they have been for the past two years.
>>>
>>> Why do Remainers seem to think that every one of the 17.4m
>>> Leaver voters should have had a precisely formulated plan for
>>> Brexit, before we'd even voted?
>>
>> Uh? 'Formulated plan'? It's unlikely that many leave voters had
>> the faintest idea of the consequences of leaving the EU, or how
>> we could go about it.
>
> But we aren't required to know that, that's the point - we make a
> choice and it's up to the politicians to implement it.
>
> In fact, that is specifically stated in the gov'ts taxpeyer-funded
> Remain propaganda sheet : See the section : A Once In A Geberation
> Decision 'This is your decision. The Government will implement
> what you decide.'

Th erefernsum asked: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of
the European Union or leave the European Union?" The decision was
to leave the EU. Neither more nor less. The government is
implementing that.

One Leave MP was moaning that Theresa May's latest package was "not
what 17.4 million people were promised". He must be deluding
himself into thinking irresponsible campaign lies, partly funded by
Russophiles, and coming from all manner of extremist lobby groups
somehow constitute a promise binding on a government.

He should have read the referendum question.






--

Brexit is a massive con job. Now the wheels are coming off the
Brexit clown car.

[Fredxx]

On 09/07/2018 13:56, pamela wrote:
> On 11:57 8 Jul 2018, Vidcapper wrote:
>
>> On 08/07/2018 09:08, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> In message <U6i0D.1027625$%***@fx40.am4>, Vidcapper
>>> <***@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>>> On 07/07/2018 17:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The only difference between the Remainers and the Leavers is
>>>>> that the former very occasionally offer do some new thoughtful
>>>>> analysis, and occasionally make suggestions for overcoming the
>>>>> ever-appearing problems - while the latter usually simply chant
>>>>> the same old stuff as they have been for the past two years.
>>>>
>>>> Why do Remainers seem to think that every one of the 17.4m
>>>> Leaver voters should have had a precisely formulated plan for
>>>> Brexit, before we'd even voted?
>>>
>>> Uh? 'Formulated plan'? It's unlikely that many leave voters had
>>> the faintest idea of the consequences of leaving the EU, or how
>>> we could go about it.
>>
>> But we aren't required to know that, that's the point - we make a
>> choice and it's up to the politicians to implement it.
>>
>> In fact, that is specifically stated in the gov'ts taxpeyer-funded
>> Remain propaganda sheet : See the section : A Once In A Geberation
>> Decision 'This is your decision. The Government will implement
>> what you decide.'
>
> Th erefernsum asked: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of
> the European Union or leave the European Union?" The decision was
> to leave the EU. Neither more nor less. The government is
> implementing that.

For once I agree with you. But every time Brexiters are derided and
abused by those here and elsewhere, it simply further polarises opinions.

> One Leave MP was moaning that Theresa May's latest package was "not
> what 17.4 million people were promised". He must be deluding
> himself into thinking irresponsible campaign lies, partly funded by
> Russophiles, and coming from all manner of extremist lobby groups
> somehow constitute a promise binding on a government.

I could have expected you to resort to name calling as you have no other
argument.

You conveniently ignore Project Fear and the lobbyists that funded the
Remain campaign. Even Obama had his say. Would you agree that Remain was
supported by Usaphiles? That's without the UK government writing to
everyone and more EU lobbyists like George Soros.

[pensive hamster]

On Monday, 9 July 2018 15:05:48 UTC+1, Fredxx wrote:
> On 09/07/2018 13:56, pamela wrote:
> > On 11:57 8 Jul 2018, Vidcapper wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/07/2018 09:08, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >>> In message <U6i0D.1027625$%***@fx40.am4>, Vidcapper
> >>> <***@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >>>> On 07/07/2018 17:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The only difference between the Remainers and the Leavers is
> >>>>> that the former very occasionally offer do some new thoughtful
> >>>>> analysis, and occasionally make suggestions for overcoming the
> >>>>> ever-appearing problems - while the latter usually simply chant
> >>>>> the same old stuff as they have been for the past two years.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why do Remainers seem to think that every one of the 17.4m
> >>>> Leaver voters should have had a precisely formulated plan for
> >>>> Brexit, before we'd even voted?
> >>>
> >>> Uh? 'Formulated plan'? It's unlikely that many leave voters had
> >>> the faintest idea of the consequences of leaving the EU, or how
> >>> we could go about it.
> >>
> >> But we aren't required to know that, that's the point - we make a
> >> choice and it's up to the politicians to implement it.
> >>
> >> In fact, that is specifically stated in the gov'ts taxpeyer-funded
> >> Remain propaganda sheet : See the section : A Once In A Geberation
> >> Decision 'This is your decision. The Government will implement
> >> what you decide.'
> >
> > Th erefernsum asked: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of
> > the European Union or leave the European Union?" The decision was
> > to leave the EU. Neither more nor less. The government is
> > implementing that.
>
> For once I agree with you. But every time Brexiters are derided and
> abused by those here and elsewhere, it simply further polarises opinions.

Do you think the frequent references to "Remoaners",
"Project Fear", etc. don't also tend to polarise opinions?

> > One Leave MP was moaning that Theresa May's latest package was "not
> > what 17.4 million people were promised". He must be deluding
> > himself into thinking irresponsible campaign lies, partly funded by
> > Russophiles, and coming from all manner of extremist lobby groups
> > somehow constitute a promise binding on a government.
>
> I could have expected you to resort to name calling as you have no other
> argument.
>
> You conveniently ignore Project Fear and the lobbyists that funded the
> Remain campaign. Even Obama had his say. Would you agree that Remain was
> supported by Usaphiles? That's without the UK government writing to
> everyone and more EU lobbyists like George Soros.

[JNugent]

On 09/07/2018 15:59, pensive hamster wrote:
> On Monday, 9 July 2018 15:05:48 UTC+1, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 09/07/2018 13:56, pamela wrote:
>>> On 11:57 8 Jul 2018, Vidcapper wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 08/07/2018 09:08, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>> In message <U6i0D.1027625$%***@fx40.am4>, Vidcapper
>>>>> <***@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>>>>> On 07/07/2018 17:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only difference between the Remainers and the Leavers is
>>>>>>> that the former very occasionally offer do some new thoughtful
>>>>>>> analysis, and occasionally make suggestions for overcoming the
>>>>>>> ever-appearing problems - while the latter usually simply chant
>>>>>>> the same old stuff as they have been for the past two years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do Remainers seem to think that every one of the 17.4m
>>>>>> Leaver voters should have had a precisely formulated plan for
>>>>>> Brexit, before we'd even voted?
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh? 'Formulated plan'? It's unlikely that many leave voters had
>>>>> the faintest idea of the consequences of leaving the EU, or how
>>>>> we could go about it.
>>>>
>>>> But we aren't required to know that, that's the point - we make a
>>>> choice and it's up to the politicians to implement it.
>>>>
>>>> In fact, that is specifically stated in the gov'ts taxpeyer-funded
>>>> Remain propaganda sheet : See the section : A Once In A Geberation
>>>> Decision 'This is your decision. The Government will implement
>>>> what you decide.'
>>>
>>> Th erefernsum asked: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of
>>> the European Union or leave the European Union?" The decision was
>>> to leave the EU. Neither more nor less. The government is
>>> implementing that.
>>
>> For once I agree with you. But every time Brexiters are derided and
>> abused by those here and elsewhere, it simply further polarises opinions.
>
> Do you think the frequent references to "Remoaners",
> "Project Fear", etc. don't also tend to polarise opinions?

But is either phrase unreasonable?

I voted Leave, though I didn't expect Leave to win. I could have lived
with a Remain victory. Almost all of us could have and would have,
without resorting to anything remotely analogous to the industrial-scale
Remain whinging we have seen and heard over the last two years.

And all the dire predictions...?

An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax increases?

Were they accurate?

Weren't they rather fabrications designed to frighten?

[Mike Swift]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<***@fastmail.fm> writes
>And all the dire predictions...?
>
>An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax increases?
>
>Were they accurate?
>
>Weren't they rather fabrications designed to frighten?

I could live with tax increases as long as foreign aid was cut, the NHS
was taken out of the hands of incompetent and over paid managers, health
tourists were made to pay and not scuttle off home after a freebie and
useless local councillors reduced from 3 to 1 per ward, in this
technological age we don't need 3 representatives who all do bugger all
and draw nice fat salaries.

Mike

--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange

[Yellow]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 16:15:58 +0100, Mike Swift <***@yeton.co.uk>
posted:
>
> In article <***@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <***@fastmail.fm> writes
> >And all the dire predictions...?
> >
> >An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax increases?
> >
> >Were they accurate?
> >
> >Weren't they rather fabrications designed to frighten?
>
> I could live with tax increases as long as foreign aid was cut, the NHS
> was taken out of the hands of incompetent and over paid managers, health
> tourists were made to pay and not scuttle off home after a freebie and
> useless local councillors reduced from 3 to 1 per ward, in this
> technological age we don't need 3 representatives who all do bugger all
> and draw nice fat salaries.
>
> Mike

I don't think councillors get paid a salary. Just saying.

[JNugent]

On 09/07/2018 17:00, Yellow wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 16:15:58 +0100, Mike Swift <***@yeton.co.uk>
> posted:
>>
>> In article <***@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>> <***@fastmail.fm> writes
>>> And all the dire predictions...?
>>>
>>> An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax increases?
>>>
>>> Were they accurate?
>>>
>>> Weren't they rather fabrications designed to frighten?
>>
>> I could live with tax increases as long as foreign aid was cut, the NHS
>> was taken out of the hands of incompetent and over paid managers, health
>> tourists were made to pay and not scuttle off home after a freebie and
>> useless local councillors reduced from 3 to 1 per ward, in this
>> technological age we don't need 3 representatives who all do bugger all
>> and draw nice fat salaries.
>>
>> Mike
>
> I don't think councillors get paid a salary. Just saying.

I'm sure that district and county councillors do get paid a salary, plus
attendance allowances (per meeting) and travel expenses. Travel expenses
are only remibrsement for expense incurred, of course.

Some authorities pay a relatively high flat monthly allowance ("salary"
and relatively small attendance allowances. Some do it the other way round.

£30,000 a year with special responsibility allowance (for chairing a
committee or holding a portfolio) is not unheard of, though I don't say
every councillor gets that much or anything like it.

[pamela]

On 17:05 9 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:

> On 09/07/2018 17:00, Yellow wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 16:15:58 +0100, Mike Swift
>> <***@yeton.co.uk> posted:
>>>
>>> In article <***@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>> <***@fastmail.fm> writes
>>>> And all the dire predictions...?
>>>>
>>>> An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax increases?
>>>>
>>>> Were they accurate?
>>>>
>>>> Weren't they rather fabrications designed to frighten?
>>>
>>> I could live with tax increases as long as foreign aid was cut,
>>> the NHS was taken out of the hands of incompetent and over paid
>>> managers, health tourists were made to pay and not scuttle off
>>> home after a freebie and useless local councillors reduced from
>>> 3 to 1 per ward, in this technological age we don't need 3
>>> representatives who all do bugger all and draw nice fat
>>> salaries.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>> I don't think councillors get paid a salary. Just saying.
>
> I'm sure that district and county councillors do get paid a
> salary,

Are you? I'm not.

> plus attendance allowances (per meeting) and travel
> expenses. Travel expenses are only remibrsement for expense
> incurred, of course.
>
> Some authorities pay a relatively high flat monthly allowance
> ("salary" and relatively small attendance allowances. Some do it
> the other way round.
>
> £30,000 a year with special responsibility allowance (for chairing
> a committee or holding a portfolio) is not unheard of, though I
> don't say every councillor gets that much or anything like it.

[JNugent]

On 09/07/2018 20:08, pamela wrote:
> On 17:05 9 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:
>
>> On 09/07/2018 17:00, Yellow wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 16:15:58 +0100, Mike Swift
>>> <***@yeton.co.uk> posted:
>>>>
>>>> In article <***@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>>> <***@fastmail.fm> writes
>>>>> And all the dire predictions...?
>>>>>
>>>>> An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax increases?
>>>>>
>>>>> Were they accurate?
>>>>>
>>>>> Weren't they rather fabrications designed to frighten?
>>>>
>>>> I could live with tax increases as long as foreign aid was cut,
>>>> the NHS was taken out of the hands of incompetent and over paid
>>>> managers, health tourists were made to pay and not scuttle off
>>>> home after a freebie and useless local councillors reduced from
>>>> 3 to 1 per ward, in this technological age we don't need 3
>>>> representatives who all do bugger all and draw nice fat
>>>> salaries.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>
>>> I don't think councillors get paid a salary. Just saying.
>>
>> I'm sure that district and county councillors do get paid a
>> salary,
>
> Are you? I'm not.

You ought to be, because they are. I number quite a few of them among my
friends and acquaintances, in various parties.

[pamela]

On 01:34 10 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:

> On 09/07/2018 20:08, pamela wrote:
>> On 17:05 9 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/07/2018 17:00, Yellow wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 16:15:58 +0100, Mike Swift
>>>> <***@yeton.co.uk> posted:
>>>>>
>>>>> In article <***@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>>>> <***@fastmail.fm> writes
>>>>>> And all the dire predictions...?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax increases?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Were they accurate?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Weren't they rather fabrications designed to frighten?
>>>>>
>>>>> I could live with tax increases as long as foreign aid was
>>>>> cut, the NHS was taken out of the hands of incompetent and
>>>>> over paid managers, health tourists were made to pay and not
>>>>> scuttle off home after a freebie and useless local councillors
>>>>> reduced from 3 to 1 per ward, in this technological age we
>>>>> don't need 3 representatives who all do bugger all and draw
>>>>> nice fat salaries.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> I don't think councillors get paid a salary. Just saying.
>>>
>>> I'm sure that district and county councillors do get paid a
>>> salary,
>>
>> Are you? I'm not.
>
> You ought to be, because they are. I number quite a few of them
> among my friends and acquaintances, in various parties.

To repeat, district and county councillors do not get paid a salary. I
don't care who your mates are especially if they tell you porkies.

[JNugent]

On 10/07/2018 15:01, pamela wrote:
> On 01:34 10 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:
>
>> On 09/07/2018 20:08, pamela wrote:
>>> On 17:05 9 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 09/07/2018 17:00, Yellow wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 16:15:58 +0100, Mike Swift
>>>>> <***@yeton.co.uk> posted:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <***@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>>>>> <***@fastmail.fm> writes
>>>>>>> And all the dire predictions...?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax increases?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Were they accurate?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Weren't they rather fabrications designed to frighten?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I could live with tax increases as long as foreign aid was
>>>>>> cut, the NHS was taken out of the hands of incompetent and
>>>>>> over paid managers, health tourists were made to pay and not
>>>>>> scuttle off home after a freebie and useless local councillors
>>>>>> reduced from 3 to 1 per ward, in this technological age we
>>>>>> don't need 3 representatives who all do bugger all and draw
>>>>>> nice fat salaries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think councillors get paid a salary. Just saying.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure that district and county councillors do get paid a
>>>> salary,
>>>
>>> Are you? I'm not.
>>
>> You ought to be, because they are. I number quite a few of them
>> among my friends and acquaintances, in various parties.
>
> To repeat, district and county councillors do not get paid a salary. I
> don't care who your mates are especially if they tell you porkies.

Is this a hair-split because the salary is officially known as an allowance?

It is paid monthly and has income tax and national insurance deducted
from it. Does that sound familiar?

[pamela]

On 15:15 10 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:

> On 10/07/2018 15:01, pamela wrote:
>> On 01:34 10 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/07/2018 20:08, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 17:05 9 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 09/07/2018 17:00, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 16:15:58 +0100, Mike Swift
>>>>>> <***@yeton.co.uk> posted:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <***@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>>>>>> <***@fastmail.fm> writes
>>>>>>>> And all the dire predictions...?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax increases?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Were they accurate?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Weren't they rather fabrications designed to frighten?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I could live with tax increases as long as foreign aid was
>>>>>>> cut, the NHS was taken out of the hands of incompetent and
>>>>>>> over paid managers, health tourists were made to pay and not
>>>>>>> scuttle off home after a freebie and useless local
>>>>>>> councillors reduced from 3 to 1 per ward, in this
>>>>>>> technological age we don't need 3 representatives who all do
>>>>>>> bugger all and draw nice fat salaries.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think councillors get paid a salary. Just saying.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure that district and county councillors do get paid a
>>>>> salary,
>>>>
>>>> Are you? I'm not.
>>>
>>> You ought to be, because they are. I number quite a few of them
>>> among my friends and acquaintances, in various parties.
>>
>> To repeat, district and county councillors do not get paid a
>> salary. I don't care who your mates are especially if they tell
>> you porkies.
>
> Is this a hair-split because the salary is officially known as an
> allowance?
>
> It is paid monthly and has income tax and national insurance
> deducted from it. Does that sound familiar?

It sounds like a councillor's allowance. It can't be a salary
because they don't get one.

[JNugent]

On 10/07/2018 15:26, pamela wrote:
> On 15:15 10 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:
>
>> On 10/07/2018 15:01, pamela wrote:
>>> On 01:34 10 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 09/07/2018 20:08, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 17:05 9 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 09/07/2018 17:00, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 16:15:58 +0100, Mike Swift
>>>>>>> <***@yeton.co.uk> posted:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <***@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>>>>>>> <***@fastmail.fm> writes
>>>>>>>>> And all the dire predictions...?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax increases?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Were they accurate?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Weren't they rather fabrications designed to frighten?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I could live with tax increases as long as foreign aid was
>>>>>>>> cut, the NHS was taken out of the hands of incompetent and
>>>>>>>> over paid managers, health tourists were made to pay and not
>>>>>>>> scuttle off home after a freebie and useless local
>>>>>>>> councillors reduced from 3 to 1 per ward, in this
>>>>>>>> technological age we don't need 3 representatives who all do
>>>>>>>> bugger all and draw nice fat salaries.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think councillors get paid a salary. Just saying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure that district and county councillors do get paid a
>>>>>> salary,
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you? I'm not.
>>>>
>>>> You ought to be, because they are. I number quite a few of them
>>>> among my friends and acquaintances, in various parties.
>>>
>>> To repeat, district and county councillors do not get paid a
>>> salary. I don't care who your mates are especially if they tell
>>> you porkies.
>>
>> Is this a hair-split because the salary is officially known as an
>> allowance?
>>
>> It is paid monthly and has income tax and national insurance
>> deducted from it. Does that sound familiar?
>
> It sounds like a councillor's allowance. It can't be a salary
> because they don't get one.

The term "salary" was used by another poster. I see no reason to
disagree with it and harumph about it being officially an allowance
because for every practical purpose imaginable, it functions exactly
like a salary or wages.

It is paid periodically to the councillor (who is legally an employee of
the authority whilst in elective office) and is subject to deductions
for PAYE income tax and for national insurance.

It is officially known as an allowance, as are payments made for
attending at meetings and special responsibility allowances and other
payments made to portfolio holders and (party) group leaders, but they
are all paid just like wages, all net of tax and NI.

The only exception to this is travel and subsistence expenses, paid as a
reimbursement, just as they are in any other employment.

If the councillor is defeated at a subsequent election, or does not
stand again, the allowances stop (subject to an adjustment on the final
payment to reflect the exact date of cessation). If he resigns, they
stop. If he is off sick, they don't stop (at least, the basic allowance
doesn't, just like salary).

[pamela]

On 16:29 10 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:

> On 10/07/2018 15:26, pamela wrote:
>> On 15:15 10 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/07/2018 15:01, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 01:34 10 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 09/07/2018 20:08, pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 17:05 9 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 09/07/2018 17:00, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 16:15:58 +0100, Mike Swift
>>>>>>>> <***@yeton.co.uk> posted:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In article <***@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>>>>>>>> <***@fastmail.fm> writes
>>>>>>>>>> And all the dire predictions...?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax
>>>>>>>>>> increases?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Were they accurate?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Weren't they rather fabrications designed to frighten?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I could live with tax increases as long as foreign aid was
>>>>>>>>> cut, the NHS was taken out of the hands of incompetent and
>>>>>>>>> over paid managers, health tourists were made to pay and
>>>>>>>>> not scuttle off home after a freebie and useless local
>>>>>>>>> councillors reduced from 3 to 1 per ward, in this
>>>>>>>>> technological age we don't need 3 representatives who all
>>>>>>>>> do bugger all and draw nice fat salaries.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think councillors get paid a salary. Just saying.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sure that district and county councillors do get paid a
>>>>>>> salary,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you? I'm not.
>>>>>
>>>>> You ought to be, because they are. I number quite a few of
>>>>> them among my friends and acquaintances, in various parties.
>>>>
>>>> To repeat, district and county councillors do not get paid a
>>>> salary. I don't care who your mates are especially if they
>>>> tell you porkies.
>>>
>>> Is this a hair-split because the salary is officially known as
>>> an allowance?
>>>
>>> It is paid monthly and has income tax and national insurance
>>> deducted from it. Does that sound familiar?
>>
>> It sounds like a councillor's allowance. It can't be a salary
>> because they don't get one.
>
> The term "salary" was used by another poster. I see no reason to
> disagree with it and harumph about it being officially an
> allowance because for every practical purpose imaginable, it
> functions exactly like a salary or wages.
>
> It is paid periodically to the councillor (who is legally an
> employee of the authority whilst in elective office) and is
> subject to deductions for PAYE income tax and for national
> insurance.
>
> It is officially known as an allowance, as are payments made for
> attending at meetings and special responsibility allowances and
> other payments made to portfolio holders and (party) group
> leaders, but they are all paid just like wages, all net of tax and
> NI.
>
> The only exception to this is travel and subsistence expenses,
> paid as a reimbursement, just as they are in any other employment.
>
> If the councillor is defeated at a subsequent election, or does
> not stand again, the allowances stop (subject to an adjustment on
> the final payment to reflect the exact date of cessation). If he
> resigns, they stop. If he is off sick, they don't stop (at least,
> the basic allowance doesn't, just like salary).

So we agree.... councillors are not paid a salary but are given
allowances. Hardly worth dragging out the discussion, as you are
wont to do, over something as simple as that.

[JNugent]

On 10/07/2018 16:47, pamela wrote:
> On 16:29 10 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:
>
>> On 10/07/2018 15:26, pamela wrote:
>>> On 15:15 10 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/07/2018 15:01, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 01:34 10 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 09/07/2018 20:08, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17:05 9 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 09/07/2018 17:00, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 16:15:58 +0100, Mike Swift
>>>>>>>>> <***@yeton.co.uk> posted:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In article <***@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>>>>>>>>> <***@fastmail.fm> writes
>>>>>>>>>>> And all the dire predictions...?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax
>>>>>>>>>>> increases?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Were they accurate?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Weren't they rather fabrications designed to frighten?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I could live with tax increases as long as foreign aid was
>>>>>>>>>> cut, the NHS was taken out of the hands of incompetent and
>>>>>>>>>> over paid managers, health tourists were made to pay and
>>>>>>>>>> not scuttle off home after a freebie and useless local
>>>>>>>>>> councillors reduced from 3 to 1 per ward, in this
>>>>>>>>>> technological age we don't need 3 representatives who all
>>>>>>>>>> do bugger all and draw nice fat salaries.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think councillors get paid a salary. Just saying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm sure that district and county councillors do get paid a
>>>>>>>> salary,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you? I'm not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You ought to be, because they are. I number quite a few of
>>>>>> them among my friends and acquaintances, in various parties.
>>>>>
>>>>> To repeat, district and county councillors do not get paid a
>>>>> salary. I don't care who your mates are especially if they
>>>>> tell you porkies.
>>>>
>>>> Is this a hair-split because the salary is officially known as
>>>> an allowance?
>>>>
>>>> It is paid monthly and has income tax and national insurance
>>>> deducted from it. Does that sound familiar?
>>>
>>> It sounds like a councillor's allowance. It can't be a salary
>>> because they don't get one.
>>
>> The term "salary" was used by another poster. I see no reason to
>> disagree with it and harumph about it being officially an
>> allowance because for every practical purpose imaginable, it
>> functions exactly like a salary or wages.
>>
>> It is paid periodically to the councillor (who is legally an
>> employee of the authority whilst in elective office) and is
>> subject to deductions for PAYE income tax and for national
>> insurance.
>>
>> It is officially known as an allowance, as are payments made for
>> attending at meetings and special responsibility allowances and
>> other payments made to portfolio holders and (party) group
>> leaders, but they are all paid just like wages, all net of tax and
>> NI.
>>
>> The only exception to this is travel and subsistence expenses,
>> paid as a reimbursement, just as they are in any other employment.
>>
>> If the councillor is defeated at a subsequent election, or does
>> not stand again, the allowances stop (subject to an adjustment on
>> the final payment to reflect the exact date of cessation). If he
>> resigns, they stop. If he is off sick, they don't stop (at least,
>> the basic allowance doesn't, just like salary).
>
> So we agree.... councillors are not paid a salary but are given
> allowances. Hardly worth dragging out the discussion, as you are
> wont to do, over something as simple as that.

I have already said that "salary" was used by another poster. I saw and
see no advantage or gain in disagreeing with that on a matter of pure
trivia. In any case, the word "salary" is often misused in colloquially
description of regular payments which are not strictly salary
(especially wages).

BTW: see (out of interest)::

<http://www.cllrandrewwood.com/expenses.html>

...and the related image when you scroll down to the lower part of the page.

[pamela]

On 00:21 11 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:

> On 10/07/2018 16:47, pamela wrote:
>> On 16:29 10 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/07/2018 15:26, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 15:15 10 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/07/2018 15:01, pamela wrote:
>>>>>> On 01:34 10 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 09/07/2018 20:08, pamela wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17:05 9 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 09/07/2018 17:00, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 16:15:58 +0100, Mike Swift
>>>>>>>>>> <***@yeton.co.uk> posted:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <***@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>>>>>>>>>> <***@fastmail.fm> writes
>>>>>>>>>>>> And all the dire predictions...?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax
>>>>>>>>>>>> increases?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Were they accurate?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Weren't they rather fabrications designed to frighten?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I could live with tax increases as long as foreign aid
>>>>>>>>>>> was cut, the NHS was taken out of the hands of
>>>>>>>>>>> incompetent and over paid managers, health tourists were
>>>>>>>>>>> made to pay and not scuttle off home after a freebie and
>>>>>>>>>>> useless local councillors reduced from 3 to 1 per ward,
>>>>>>>>>>> in this technological age we don't need 3
>>>>>>>>>>> representatives who all do bugger all and draw nice fat
>>>>>>>>>>> salaries.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think councillors get paid a salary. Just saying.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm sure that district and county councillors do get paid
>>>>>>>>> a salary,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you? I'm not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You ought to be, because they are. I number quite a few of
>>>>>>> them among my friends and acquaintances, in various parties.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To repeat, district and county councillors do not get paid a
>>>>>> salary. I don't care who your mates are especially if they
>>>>>> tell you porkies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is this a hair-split because the salary is officially known as
>>>>> an allowance?
>>>>>
>>>>> It is paid monthly and has income tax and national insurance
>>>>> deducted from it. Does that sound familiar?
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like a councillor's allowance. It can't be a salary
>>>> because they don't get one.
>>>
>>> The term "salary" was used by another poster. I see no reason to
>>> disagree with it and harumph about it being officially an
>>> allowance because for every practical purpose imaginable, it
>>> functions exactly like a salary or wages.
>>>
>>> It is paid periodically to the councillor (who is legally an
>>> employee of the authority whilst in elective office) and is
>>> subject to deductions for PAYE income tax and for national
>>> insurance.
>>>
>>> It is officially known as an allowance, as are payments made for
>>> attending at meetings and special responsibility allowances and
>>> other payments made to portfolio holders and (party) group
>>> leaders, but they are all paid just like wages, all net of tax
>>> and NI.
>>>
>>> The only exception to this is travel and subsistence expenses,
>>> paid as a reimbursement, just as they are in any other
>>> employment.
>>>
>>> If the councillor is defeated at a subsequent election, or does
>>> not stand again, the allowances stop (subject to an adjustment
>>> on the final payment to reflect the exact date of cessation). If
>>> he resigns, they stop. If he is off sick, they don't stop (at
>>> least, the basic allowance doesn't, just like salary).
>>
>> So we agree.... councillors are not paid a salary but are given
>> allowances. Hardly worth dragging out the discussion, as you are
>> wont to do, over something as simple as that.
>
> I have already said that "salary" was used by another poster. I
> saw and see no advantage or gain in disagreeing with that on a
> matter of pure trivia. In any case, the word "salary" is often
> misused in colloquially description of regular payments which are
> not strictly salary (especially wages).
>
> BTW: see (out of interest)::
> <http://www.cllrandrewwood.com/expenses.html>
> ...and the related image when you scroll down to the lower part of
> the page.

So we agree. The word "salary" was misused and councillors do not get
paid a salary.

[pamela]

On 17:05 9 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:

> On 09/07/2018 17:00, Yellow wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 16:15:58 +0100, Mike Swift
>> <***@yeton.co.uk> posted:
>>>
>>> In article <***@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>> <***@fastmail.fm> writes
>>>> And all the dire predictions...?
>>>>
>>>> An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax increases?
>>>>
>>>> Were they accurate?
>>>>
>>>> Weren't they rather fabrications designed to frighten?
>>>
>>> I could live with tax increases as long as foreign aid was cut,
>>> the NHS was taken out of the hands of incompetent and over paid
>>> managers, health tourists were made to pay and not scuttle off
>>> home after a freebie and useless local councillors reduced from
>>> 3 to 1 per ward, in this technological age we don't need 3
>>> representatives who all do bugger all and draw nice fat
>>> salaries.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>> I don't think councillors get paid a salary. Just saying.
>
> I'm sure that district and county councillors do get paid a
> salary, plus attendance allowances (per meeting) and travel
> expenses. Travel expenses are only remibrsement for expense
> incurred, of course.
>
> Some authorities pay a relatively high flat monthly allowance
> ("salary" and relatively small attendance allowances. Some do it
> the other way round.

"Salary" is not what is normally understood by salary.

> £30,000 a year with special responsibility allowance (for chairing
> a committee or holding a portfolio) is not unheard of, though I
> don't say every councillor gets that much or anything like it.

Councillors get paid an allowance, which may get taxed as income as
it is may be allocated for time spend. There was a debate about
this by the Local Government Select Committee.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/councillors-on-the-
frontline-government-response

[JNugent]

On 10/07/2018 15:11, pamela wrote:
> On 17:05 9 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:
>
>> On 09/07/2018 17:00, Yellow wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 16:15:58 +0100, Mike Swift
>>> <***@yeton.co.uk> posted:
>>>>
>>>> In article <***@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
>>>> <***@fastmail.fm> writes
>>>>> And all the dire predictions...?
>>>>>
>>>>> An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax increases?
>>>>>
>>>>> Were they accurate?
>>>>>
>>>>> Weren't they rather fabrications designed to frighten?
>>>>
>>>> I could live with tax increases as long as foreign aid was cut,
>>>> the NHS was taken out of the hands of incompetent and over paid
>>>> managers, health tourists were made to pay and not scuttle off
>>>> home after a freebie and useless local councillors reduced from
>>>> 3 to 1 per ward, in this technological age we don't need 3
>>>> representatives who all do bugger all and draw nice fat
>>>> salaries.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>
>>> I don't think councillors get paid a salary. Just saying.
>>
>> I'm sure that district and county councillors do get paid a
>> salary, plus attendance allowances (per meeting) and travel
>> expenses. Travel expenses are only remibrsement for expense
>> incurred, of course.
>>
>> Some authorities pay a relatively high flat monthly allowance
>> ("salary" and relatively small attendance allowances. Some do it
>> the other way round.
>
> "Salary" is not what is normally understood by salary.

?????

>> £30,000 a year with special responsibility allowance (for chairing
>> a committee or holding a portfolio) is not unheard of, though I
>> don't say every councillor gets that much or anything like it.
>
> Councillors get paid an allowance, which may get taxed as income as
> it is may be allocated for time spend. There was a debate about
> this by the Local Government Select Committee.
>
> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/councillors-on-the-
> frontline-government-response
>

[Mike Swift]

In article <***@News.Individual.NET>, Yellow
<***@none.com.invalid> writes
> I could live with tax increases as long as foreign aid was cut, the NHS
>> was taken out of the hands of incompetent and over paid managers, health
>> tourists were made to pay and not scuttle off home after a freebie and
>> useless local councillors reduced from 3 to 1 per ward, in this
>> technological age we don't need 3 representatives who all do bugger all
>> and draw nice fat salaries.
>>
>> Mike
>
>I don't think councillors get paid a salary. Just saying.

I think they do, plus expenses, and most of ours are classed as Cabinet
Member for some bullshit or other which adds extra money.

Mike

--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange

[JNugent]

On 10/07/2018 00:43, Mike Swift wrote:
> In article <***@News.Individual.NET>, Yellow
> <***@none.com.invalid> writes
>> I could live with tax increases as long as foreign aid was cut, the NHS
>>> was taken out of the hands of incompetent and over paid managers, health
>>> tourists were made to pay and not scuttle off home after a freebie and
>>> useless local councillors reduced from 3 to 1 per ward, in this
>>> technological age we don't need 3 representatives who all do bugger all
>>> and draw nice fat salaries.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>> I don't think councillors get paid a salary. Just saying.
>
> I think they do, plus expenses, and most of ours are classed as Cabinet
> Member for some bullshit or other which adds extra money.

Quite so.

[Norman Wells]

On 10/07/2018 00:43, Mike Swift wrote:
> In article <***@News.Individual.NET>, Yellow
> <***@none.com.invalid> writes
>> I could live with tax increases as long as foreign aid was cut, the NHS
>>> was taken out of the hands of incompetent and over paid managers, health
>>> tourists were made to pay and not scuttle off home after a freebie and
>>> useless local councillors reduced from 3 to 1 per ward, in this
>>> technological age we don't need 3 representatives who all do bugger all
>>> and draw nice fat salaries.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>> I don't think councillors get paid a salary. Just saying.
>
> I think they do, plus expenses, and most of ours are classed as Cabinet
> Member for some bullshit or other which adds extra money.

"Councillors are not paid a formal salary but they are given allowances
to compensate them for their time spent on council business.

The amount varies from a couple of thousand pounds a year to £20,000 or
more."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20967913

In my district:

"Allowances
Councillors are able to claim a number of allowances. The main
allowances paid are:

Basic allowance
The basic allowance is an amount paid to every councillor (unless they
decide not to claim it) for the performance of their duties. It reflects
an assessment of the time required to undertake the role of a councillor
and is discounted by 35% to reflect the element of public service
involved in performing those duties.

Special responsibility allowance (SRA)
SRA are paid to councillors who perform extra duties carrying a special
responsibility or time commitment. They are presently paid to the Leader
and Deputy Leader, executive portfolio holders, chairmen of all
regulatory and overview and scrutiny committees, and to the chairmen of
the two area forums. A SRA is also paid to political group leaders for
the performance of that role, graded according to how many members there
are in each group. Members of the Planning Committee receive a SRA in
recognition of the more regular nature of meetings of that committee and
the extra time commitment that entails. Only one SRA may be paid to a
member at any one time, except to a group leader who may receive a
maximum of one other allowance.

Travel allowance
Travel and subsistence expenses are paid to members who claim for
reimbursement of reasonable costs that have been necessarily incurred in
undertaking a range of approved duties as defined in the scheme. Travel
costs are paid at the rate set by the Inland Revenue (currently 45p per
mile). Reimbursement is also made of costs incurred on journeys
undertaken by public transport upon the production of receipts.
Subsistence may be paid for other expenses incurred on approved duties
such as overnight stays or on carers' allowance."

The 'Basic Allowance' is £5100. The average of all allowances per
councillor last year was £7277, including the leader of the council on
under £20,000.

[JNugent]

On 10/07/2018 07:40, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 10/07/2018 00:43, Mike Swift wrote:
>> In article <***@News.Individual.NET>, Yellow
>> <***@none.com.invalid> writes
>>> I could live with tax increases as long as foreign aid was cut, the NHS
>>>> was taken out of the hands of incompetent and over paid managers,
>>>> health
>>>> tourists were made to pay and not scuttle off home after a freebie and
>>>> useless local councillors reduced from 3 to 1 per ward, in this
>>>> technological age we don't need 3 representatives who all do bugger all
>>>> and draw nice fat salaries.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>
>>> I don't think councillors get paid a salary. Just saying.
>>
>> I think they do, plus expenses, and most of ours are classed as
>> Cabinet Member for some bullshit or other which adds extra money.
>
> "Councillors are not paid a formal salary but they are given allowances
> to compensate them for their time spent on council business.
>
> The amount varies from a couple of thousand pounds a year to £20,000 or
> more."
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20967913
>
> In my district:
>
> "Allowances
> Councillors are able to claim a number of allowances. The main
> allowances paid are:
>
> Basic allowance
> The basic allowance is an amount paid to every councillor (unless they
> decide not to claim it) for the performance of their duties. It reflects
> an assessment of the time required to undertake the role of a councillor
> and is discounted by 35% to reflect the element of public service
> involved in performing those duties.

Fr the benefit of any reader (and it isn't aimed at NW in particular),
that is the bit referred to in earlier posts by various contributors as
a "salary". It is paid monthly, taxed at source and national insurance
deducted.

If it looks like a duck...

> Special responsibility allowance (SRA)
> SRA are paid to councillors who perform extra duties carrying a special
> responsibility or time commitment. They are presently paid to the Leader
> and Deputy Leader, executive portfolio holders, chairmen of all
> regulatory and overview and scrutiny committees, and to the chairmen of
> the two area forums. A SRA is also paid to political group leaders for
> the performance of that role, graded according to how many members there
> are in each group. Members of the Planning Committee receive a SRA in
> recognition of the more regular nature of meetings of that committee and
> the extra time commitment that entails. Only one SRA may be paid to a
> member at any one time, except to a group leader who may receive a
> maximum of one other allowance.
>
> Travel allowance
> Travel and subsistence expenses are paid to members who claim for
> reimbursement of reasonable costs that have been necessarily incurred in
> undertaking a range of approved duties as defined in the scheme. Travel
> costs are paid at the rate set by the Inland Revenue (currently 45p per
> mile). Reimbursement is also made of costs incurred on journeys
> undertaken by public transport upon the production of receipts.
> Subsistence may be paid for other expenses incurred on approved duties
> such as overnight stays or on carers' allowance."

> The 'Basic Allowance' is £5100. The average of all allowances per
> councillor last year was £7277, including the leader of the council on
> under £20,000.

[Norman Wells]

On 10/07/2018 14:34, JNugent wrote:
> On 10/07/2018 07:40, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 10/07/2018 00:43, Mike Swift wrote:

>> "Allowances
>> Councillors are able to claim a number of allowances. The main
>> allowances paid are:
>>
>> Basic allowance
>> The basic allowance is an amount paid to every councillor (unless they
>> decide not to claim it) for the performance of their duties. It reflects
>> an assessment of the time required to undertake the role of a councillor
>> and is discounted by 35% to reflect the element of public service
>> involved in performing those duties.
>
> Fr the benefit of any reader (and it isn't aimed at NW in particular),
> that is the bit referred to in earlier posts by various contributors as
> a "salary". It is paid monthly, taxed at source and national insurance
> deducted.
>
> If it looks like a duck...

it doesn't look much like a duck to me. It's paid without any regard to
work done for a start.

But it's all pointless semantics. Whatever you call it makes no difference.

The 'Basic Allowance' is £5100. If that's payment for work, it's
probably well below the minimum wage.

[JNugent]

On 10/07/2018 16:31, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 10/07/2018 14:34, JNugent wrote:
>> On 10/07/2018 07:40, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 10/07/2018 00:43, Mike Swift wrote:
>
>>> "Allowances
>>> Councillors are able to claim a number of allowances. The main
>>> allowances paid are:
>>>
>>> Basic allowance
>>> The basic allowance is an amount paid to every councillor (unless they
>>> decide not to claim it) for the performance of their duties. It reflects
>>> an assessment of the time required to undertake the role of a councillor
>>> and is discounted by 35% to reflect the element of public service
>>> involved in performing those duties.
>>
>> Fr the benefit of any reader (and it isn't aimed at NW in particular),
>> that is the bit referred to in earlier posts by various contributors
>> as a "salary". It is paid monthly, taxed at source and national
>> insurance deducted.
>>
>> If it looks like a duck...
>
> it doesn't look much like a duck to me. It's paid without any regard to
> work done for a start.

So are many salaries.

My last one was.

> But it's all pointless semantics. Whatever you call it makes no
> difference.
>
> The 'Basic Allowance' is £5100. If that's payment for work, it's
> probably well below the minimum wage.

It depends.

[kat]

On 11/07/2018 00:06, JNugent wrote:
> On 10/07/2018 16:31, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 10/07/2018 14:34, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 10/07/2018 07:40, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 10/07/2018 00:43, Mike Swift wrote:
>>
>>>> "Allowances
>>>> Councillors are able to claim a number of allowances. The main
>>>> allowances paid are:
>>>>
>>>> Basic allowance
>>>> The basic allowance is an amount paid to every councillor (unless they
>>>> decide not to claim it) for the performance of their duties. It reflects
>>>> an assessment of the time required to undertake the role of a councillor
>>>> and is discounted by 35% to reflect the element of public service
>>>> involved in performing those duties.
>>>
>>> Fr the benefit of any reader (and it isn't aimed at NW in particular),
>>> that is the bit referred to in earlier posts by various contributors
>>> as a "salary". It is paid monthly, taxed at source and national
>>> insurance deducted.
>>>
>>> If it looks like a duck...
>>
>> it doesn't look much like a duck to me.  It's paid without any regard to
>> work done for a start.
>
> So are many salaries.
>
> My last one was.
>
>> But it's all pointless semantics.  Whatever you call it makes no
>> difference.
>>
>> The 'Basic Allowance' is £5100.  If that's payment for work, it's
>> probably well below the minimum wage.
>
> It depends.

About 12.5 hours per week, every week, at minimum wage. I bet they don't do
anything like that if on the minimum allowance.

kat

[Norman Wells]

On 11/07/2018 08:44, kat wrote:
> On 11/07/2018 00:06, JNugent wrote:
>> On 10/07/2018 16:31, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 10/07/2018 14:34, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 10/07/2018 07:40, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>> On 10/07/2018 00:43, Mike Swift wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "Allowances
>>>>> Councillors are able to claim a number of allowances. The main
>>>>> allowances paid are:
>>>>>
>>>>> Basic allowance
>>>>> The basic allowance is an amount paid to every councillor (unless they
>>>>> decide not to claim it) for the performance of their duties. It
>>>>> reflects
>>>>> an assessment of the time required to undertake the role of a
>>>>> councillor
>>>>> and is discounted by 35% to reflect the element of public service
>>>>> involved in performing those duties.
>>>>
>>>> Fr the benefit of any reader (and it isn't aimed at NW in particular),
>>>> that is the bit referred to in earlier posts by various contributors
>>>> as a "salary". It is paid monthly, taxed at source and national
>>>> insurance deducted.
>>>>
>>>> If it looks like a duck...
>>>
>>> it doesn't look much like a duck to me.  It's paid without any regard to
>>> work done for a start.
>>
>> So are many salaries.
>>
>> My last one was.
>>
>>> But it's all pointless semantics.  Whatever you call it makes no
>>> difference.
>>>
>>> The 'Basic Allowance' is £5100.  If that's payment for work, it's
>>> probably well below the minimum wage.
>>
>> It depends.
>
> About 12.5 hours per week, every week, at minimum wage.  I bet they
> don't do anything like that if on the minimum allowance.

Well, the above does say: "It reflects an assessment of the time
required to undertake the role of a councillor and is discounted by 35%
to reflect the element of public service involved in performing those
duties".

And it seems to me anyway that dealing with the matters that Councillors
do, like planning for example, is rather more than a minimum wage job
like washing up.

[kat]

On 11/07/2018 09:04, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 11/07/2018 08:44, kat wrote:
>> On 11/07/2018 00:06, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 10/07/2018 16:31, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 10/07/2018 14:34, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 10/07/2018 07:40, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/07/2018 00:43, Mike Swift wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> "Allowances
>>>>>> Councillors are able to claim a number of allowances. The main
>>>>>> allowances paid are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basic allowance
>>>>>> The basic allowance is an amount paid to every councillor (unless they
>>>>>> decide not to claim it) for the performance of their duties. It reflects
>>>>>> an assessment of the time required to undertake the role of a councillor
>>>>>> and is discounted by 35% to reflect the element of public service
>>>>>> involved in performing those duties.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fr the benefit of any reader (and it isn't aimed at NW in particular),
>>>>> that is the bit referred to in earlier posts by various contributors
>>>>> as a "salary". It is paid monthly, taxed at source and national
>>>>> insurance deducted.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it looks like a duck...
>>>>
>>>> it doesn't look much like a duck to me.  It's paid without any regard to
>>>> work done for a start.
>>>
>>> So are many salaries.
>>>
>>> My last one was.
>>>
>>>> But it's all pointless semantics.  Whatever you call it makes no
>>>> difference.
>>>>
>>>> The 'Basic Allowance' is £5100.  If that's payment for work, it's
>>>> probably well below the minimum wage.
>>>
>>> It depends.
>>
>> About 12.5 hours per week, every week, at minimum wage.  I bet they don't do
>> anything like that if on the minimum allowance.
>
> Well, the above does say: "It reflects an assessment of the time required to
> undertake the role of a councillor and is discounted by 35% to reflect the
> element of public service involved in performing those duties".
>
> And it seems to me anyway that dealing with the matters that Councillors do,
> like planning for example, is rather more than a minimum wage job like washing up.
>
>

Quite. Therefore they will earn more than the minimum wage for the hours they do.

kat

[JNugent]

On 11/07/2018 09:04, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 11/07/2018 08:44, kat wrote:
>> On 11/07/2018 00:06, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 10/07/2018 16:31, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 10/07/2018 14:34, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 10/07/2018 07:40, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/07/2018 00:43, Mike Swift wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> "Allowances
>>>>>> Councillors are able to claim a number of allowances. The main
>>>>>> allowances paid are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Basic allowance
>>>>>> The basic allowance is an amount paid to every councillor (unless
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> decide not to claim it) for the performance of their duties. It
>>>>>> reflects
>>>>>> an assessment of the time required to undertake the role of a
>>>>>> councillor
>>>>>> and is discounted by 35% to reflect the element of public service
>>>>>> involved in performing those duties.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fr the benefit of any reader (and it isn't aimed at NW in particular),
>>>>> that is the bit referred to in earlier posts by various contributors
>>>>> as a "salary". It is paid monthly, taxed at source and national
>>>>> insurance deducted.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it looks like a duck...
>>>>
>>>> it doesn't look much like a duck to me. It's paid without any
>>>> regard to
>>>> work done for a start.
>>>
>>> So are many salaries.
>>>
>>> My last one was.
>>>
>>>> But it's all pointless semantics. Whatever you call it makes no
>>>> difference.
>>>>
>>>> The 'Basic Allowance' is £5100. If that's payment for work, it's
>>>> probably well below the minimum wage.
>>>
>>> It depends.
>>
>> About 12.5 hours per week, every week, at minimum wage. I bet they
>> don't do anything like that if on the minimum allowance.
>
> Well, the above does say: "It reflects an assessment of the time
> required to undertake the role of a councillor and is discounted by 35%
> to reflect the element of public service involved in performing those
> duties".
>
> And it seems to me anyway that dealing with the matters that Councillors
> do, like planning for example, is rather more than a minimum wage job
> like washing up.

Councillors don't spnd much time "deal with planning matters" unless
they happen to be the portfolio holder or deputy.

*If* they are a member of it, they attend a meeting at which
non-delegated planning applications are decided. Caucus meetings
beforehand are political and are not intended to be paid. Councillors
who are not members of the planning committee don't deal with planning
at all, except perhaps on behalf of a solicitous constituent.

Most planning applications are either decided by the officers of a
council using delegated powers or are exempt from the need for planning
consent. An example of that would be an extension within "permitted
development rights", which means within a certain proportion of
footprint expansion.

A councillor's own application, however minor, would never be dealt with
under delegated powers. My neighbour was a councillor a few decades ago
and I was consulted on a minor matter concerning his garage (the far
side of the property and not likely to affect me) simply because there
is a need to demonstrate that councillors do not get favours from the
officers.

[Norman Wells]

On 11/07/2018 11:36, JNugent wrote:
> On 11/07/2018 09:04, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 11/07/2018 08:44, kat wrote:
>>> On 11/07/2018 00:06, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 10/07/2018 16:31, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>> On 10/07/2018 14:34, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/07/2018 07:40, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/07/2018 00:43, Mike Swift wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Allowances
>>>>>>> Councillors are able to claim a number of allowances. The main
>>>>>>> allowances paid are:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Basic allowance
>>>>>>> The basic allowance is an amount paid to every councillor (unless
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> decide not to claim it) for the performance of their duties. It
>>>>>>> reflects
>>>>>>> an assessment of the time required to undertake the role of a
>>>>>>> councillor
>>>>>>> and is discounted by 35% to reflect the element of public service
>>>>>>> involved in performing those duties.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fr the benefit of any reader (and it isn't aimed at NW in
>>>>>> particular),
>>>>>> that is the bit referred to in earlier posts by various contributors
>>>>>> as a "salary". It is paid monthly, taxed at source and national
>>>>>> insurance deducted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it looks like a duck...
>>>>>
>>>>> it doesn't look much like a duck to me.  It's paid without any
>>>>> regard to
>>>>> work done for a start.
>>>>
>>>> So are many salaries.
>>>>
>>>> My last one was.
>>>>
>>>>> But it's all pointless semantics.  Whatever you call it makes no
>>>>> difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 'Basic Allowance' is £5100.  If that's payment for work, it's
>>>>> probably well below the minimum wage.
>>>>
>>>> It depends.
>>>
>>> About 12.5 hours per week, every week, at minimum wage.  I bet they
>>> don't do anything like that if on the minimum allowance.
>>
>> Well, the above does say: "It reflects an assessment of the time
>> required to undertake the role of a councillor and is discounted by 35%
>> to reflect the element of public service involved in performing those
>> duties".
>>
>> And it seems to me anyway that dealing with the matters that Councillors
>> do, like planning for example, is rather more than a minimum wage job
>> like washing up.
>
> Councillors don't spnd much time "deal with planning matters" unless
> they happen to be the portfolio holder or deputy.
>
> *If* they are a member of it,

Councillors are always members of some committee or other, and in many
cases more than one. I just gave planning as an example.

But you're dealing again only with the time spent (which has previously
been 'assessed' and furthermore discounted by 35%), not with the value
of the job which is clearly and obviously above minimum wage levels.

[JNugent]

On 11/07/2018 11:56, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 11/07/2018 11:36, JNugent wrote:
>> On 11/07/2018 09:04, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 11/07/2018 08:44, kat wrote:
>>>> On 11/07/2018 00:06, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 10/07/2018 16:31, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/07/2018 14:34, JNugent wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/07/2018 07:40, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/07/2018 00:43, Mike Swift wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Allowances
>>>>>>>> Councillors are able to claim a number of allowances. The main
>>>>>>>> allowances paid are:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Basic allowance
>>>>>>>> The basic allowance is an amount paid to every councillor (unless
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> decide not to claim it) for the performance of their duties. It
>>>>>>>> reflects
>>>>>>>> an assessment of the time required to undertake the role of a
>>>>>>>> councillor
>>>>>>>> and is discounted by 35% to reflect the element of public service
>>>>>>>> involved in performing those duties.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fr the benefit of any reader (and it isn't aimed at NW in
>>>>>>> particular),
>>>>>>> that is the bit referred to in earlier posts by various contributors
>>>>>>> as a "salary". It is paid monthly, taxed at source and national
>>>>>>> insurance deducted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it looks like a duck...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it doesn't look much like a duck to me. It's paid without any
>>>>>> regard to
>>>>>> work done for a start.
>>>>>
>>>>> So are many salaries.
>>>>>
>>>>> My last one was.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But it's all pointless semantics. Whatever you call it makes no
>>>>>> difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 'Basic Allowance' is £5100. If that's payment for work, it's
>>>>>> probably well below the minimum wage.
>>>>>
>>>>> It depends.
>>>>
>>>> About 12.5 hours per week, every week, at minimum wage. I bet they
>>>> don't do anything like that if on the minimum allowance.
>>>
>>> Well, the above does say: "It reflects an assessment of the time
>>> required to undertake the role of a councillor and is discounted by 35%
>>> to reflect the element of public service involved in performing those
>>> duties".
>>>
>>> And it seems to me anyway that dealing with the matters that Councillors
>>> do, like planning for example, is rather more than a minimum wage job
>>> like washing up.
>>
>> Councillors don't spnd much time "deal with planning matters" unless
>> they happen to be the portfolio holder or deputy.
>>
>> *If* they are a member of it,
>
> Councillors are always members of some committee or other, and in many
> cases more than one. I just gave planning as an example.

That certainly used to be the case, before the cabinet system came in. I
don't know whether that is in use everywhere yet, but where it is,
councillors who are neither a portfolio holder nor the opposition
spokesman nowadays tend to have little official duty between full
council meetings. It's competely different from the way it was thirty or
forty years ago.

> But you're dealing again only with the time spent (which has previously
> been 'assessed' and furthermore discounted by 35%), not with the value
> of the job which is clearly and obviously above minimum wage levels.

Yes - above minimum wage levels, the more so because councillors today
either get paid significant sums (£20,000+) or have little official (I
stress the "official") duty for the authority between full council
mneetings.

[JNugent]

On 11/07/2018 08:44, kat wrote:
> On 11/07/2018 00:06, JNugent wrote:
>> On 10/07/2018 16:31, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 10/07/2018 14:34, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 10/07/2018 07:40, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>> On 10/07/2018 00:43, Mike Swift wrote:
>>>
>>>>> "Allowances
>>>>> Councillors are able to claim a number of allowances. The main
>>>>> allowances paid are:
>>>>>
>>>>> Basic allowance
>>>>> The basic allowance is an amount paid to every councillor (unless they
>>>>> decide not to claim it) for the performance of their duties. It
>>>>> reflects
>>>>> an assessment of the time required to undertake the role of a
>>>>> councillor
>>>>> and is discounted by 35% to reflect the element of public service
>>>>> involved in performing those duties.
>>>>
>>>> Fr the benefit of any reader (and it isn't aimed at NW in particular),
>>>> that is the bit referred to in earlier posts by various contributors
>>>> as a "salary". It is paid monthly, taxed at source and national
>>>> insurance deducted.
>>>>
>>>> If it looks like a duck...
>>>
>>> it doesn't look much like a duck to me. It's paid without any regard to
>>> work done for a start.
>>
>> So are many salaries.
>>
>> My last one was.
>>
>>> But it's all pointless semantics. Whatever you call it makes no
>>> difference.
>>>
>>> The 'Basic Allowance' is £5100. If that's payment for work, it's
>>> probably well below the minimum wage.
>>
>> It depends.
>
> About 12.5 hours per week, every week, at minimum wage. I bet they
> don't do anything like that if on the minimum allowance.

These days, since the death of the traditional committee / chairman
system, a councillor who is not a portfolio holder would probably have a
fair bit less than 12.5 hours a week to do, other than political liaison
(for which the allowance is not intended anyway) and constituent
case-work, at which the allowance is partly aimed.

[pensive hamster]

On Monday, 9 July 2018 16:05:52 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 09/07/2018 15:59, pensive hamster wrote:
> > On Monday, 9 July 2018 15:05:48 UTC+1, Fredxx wrote:
[...]
> >> every time Brexiters are derided and
> >> abused by those here and elsewhere, it simply further polarises opinions.
> >
> > Do you think the frequent references to "Remoaners",
> > "Project Fear", etc. don't also tend to polarise opinions?
>
> But is either phrase unreasonable?

They are both pejorative or put-down type of terms. They
might be reasonable if they were accompanied by some
specific reasons why the person using them felt they were
justified.

> I voted Leave, though I didn't expect Leave to win. I could have lived
> with a Remain victory. Almost all of us could have and would have,
> without resorting to anything remotely analogous to the industrial-scale
> Remain whinging we have seen and heard over the last two years.

You say "industrial-scale Remain whinging", I say "Remainers
trying to explain why they think Brexit would be a bad idea".

> And all the dire predictions...?

Brexit hasn't happened yet, so there isn't any evidence yet to
support any of the predictions of either side, so far as I know.

> An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax increases?

OK, the emergency Budget idea was OTT, but, as far as I recall,
it was only one person who predicted that.

There may need to be tax increases in order to maintain the
same level of services if the economy falters. There has been
some talk of tax increases to fund the NHS

> Were they accurate?

It must be your turn now. Can you point to any accurate
predictions from the Leave campaigns?

> Weren't they rather fabrications designed to frighten?

Weren't they (the predictions of the Leave side) rather
promises designed to entice?

[JNugent]

On 09/07/2018 16:37, pensive hamster wrote:

> On Monday, 9 July 2018 16:05:52 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 09/07/2018 15:59, pensive hamster wrote:
>>> On Monday, 9 July 2018 15:05:48 UTC+1, Fredxx wrote:

> [...]
>>>> every time Brexiters are derided and
>>>> abused by those here and elsewhere, it simply further polarises opinions.
>
>>> Do you think the frequent references to "Remoaners",
>>> "Project Fear", etc. don't also tend to polarise opinions?
>
>> But is either phrase unreasonable?
>
> They are both pejorative or put-down type of terms. They
> might be reasonable if they were accompanied by some
> specific reasons why the person using them felt they were
> justified.
>
>> I voted Leave, though I didn't expect Leave to win. I could have lived
>> with a Remain victory. Almost all of us could have and would have,
>> without resorting to anything remotely analogous to the industrial-scale
>> Remain whinging we have seen and heard over the last two years.
>
> You say "industrial-scale Remain whinging", I say "Remainers
> trying to explain why they think Brexit would be a bad idea".

The time for that finished around midnight on 22nd June 2016. 07:00 the
next morning at a pinch.

Thereafter, it was totally pointless because the referendum result is known.

Have you ever experienced a period as long as two years after a General
Election where the losing side(s) have expended so much equally
pointless effort in trying to persuade the winners that it would be
better to vote for Brand X (despite the vote having already taken place)?

>> And all the dire predictions...?

> Brexit hasn't happened yet, so there isn't any evidence yet to
> support any of the predictions of either side, so far as I know.
>
>> An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax increases?
>
> OK, the emergency Budget idea was OTT, but, as far as I recall,
> it was only one person who predicted that.
>
> There may need to be tax increases in order to maintain the
> same level of services if the economy falters. There has been
> some talk of tax increases to fund the NHS

That's nothing to do with leaving the EU.

>> Were they accurate?

> It must be your turn now. Can you point to any accurate
> predictions from the Leave campaigns?
>
>> Weren't they rather fabrications designed to frighten?
>
> Weren't they (the predictions of the Leave side) rather
> promises designed to entice?

Cite any vote (in any election whether a GE or a Referendum) where that
was not done during the campaign.

It's carrying on with it (and especially the Remainers' childish
attempts at insult) after the result is known that is puzzling.

What IS the point in it?

[pensive hamster]

On Monday, 9 July 2018 16:46:50 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 09/07/2018 16:37, pensive hamster wrote:
>
> > On Monday, 9 July 2018 16:05:52 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 09/07/2018 15:59, pensive hamster wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 9 July 2018 15:05:48 UTC+1, Fredxx wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >>>> every time Brexiters are derided and
> >>>> abused by those here and elsewhere, it simply further polarises opinions.
> >
> >>> Do you think the frequent references to "Remoaners",
> >>> "Project Fear", etc. don't also tend to polarise opinions?
> >
> >> But is either phrase unreasonable?
> >
> > They are both pejorative or put-down type of terms. They
> > might be reasonable if they were accompanied by some
> > specific reasons why the person using them felt they were
> > justified.
> >
> >> I voted Leave, though I didn't expect Leave to win. I could have lived
> >> with a Remain victory. Almost all of us could have and would have,
> >> without resorting to anything remotely analogous to the industrial-scale
> >> Remain whinging we have seen and heard over the last two years.
> >
> > You say "industrial-scale Remain whinging", I say "Remainers
> > trying to explain why they think Brexit would be a bad idea".
>
> The time for that finished around midnight on 22nd June 2016. 07:00 the
> next morning at a pinch.

Is there some law against discussing Brexit?

> Thereafter, it was totally pointless because the referendum result is known.

The number of votes cast is known, but the nature of Brexit
is far from known. It may not even happen, or it could be
anything between BrINO through to a hard, no deal Brexit.

> Have you ever experienced a period as long as two years after a General
> Election where the losing side(s) have expended so much equally
> pointless effort in trying to persuade the winners that it would be
> better to vote for Brand X (despite the vote having already taken place)?

Isn't that what politicians do quite a lot of, trying to persuade the
voters that it would be better to vote for Brand X?

> >> And all the dire predictions...?
>
> > Brexit hasn't happened yet, so there isn't any evidence yet to
> > support any of the predictions of either side, so far as I know.
> >
> >> An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax increases?
> >
> > OK, the emergency Budget idea was OTT, but, as far as I recall,
> > it was only one person who predicted that.
> >
> > There may need to be tax increases in order to maintain the
> > same level of services if the economy falters. There has been
> > some talk of tax increases to fund the NHS
>
> That's nothing to do with leaving the EU.
>
> >> Were they accurate?
>
> > It must be your turn now. Can you point to any accurate
> > predictions from the Leave campaigns?
> >
> >> Weren't they rather fabrications designed to frighten?
> >
> > Weren't they (the predictions of the Leave side) rather
> > promises designed to entice?
>
> Cite any vote (in any election whether a GE or a Referendum) where that
> was not done during the campaign.
>
> It's carrying on with it (and especially the Remainers' childish
> attempts at insult) after the result is known that is puzzling.
>
> What IS the point in it?

[JNugent]

On 09/07/2018 17:34, pensive hamster wrote:

> On Monday, 9 July 2018 16:46:50 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 09/07/2018 16:37, pensive hamster wrote:
>>> On Monday, 9 July 2018 16:05:52 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 09/07/2018 15:59, pensive hamster wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 9 July 2018 15:05:48 UTC+1, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>>>>> every time Brexiters are derided and
>>>>>> abused by those here and elsewhere, it simply further polarises opinions.
>>>
>>>>> Do you think the frequent references to "Remoaners",
>>>>> "Project Fear", etc. don't also tend to polarise opinions?
>>>
>>>> But is either phrase unreasonable?
>>>
>>> They are both pejorative or put-down type of terms. They
>>> might be reasonable if they were accompanied by some
>>> specific reasons why the person using them felt they were
>>> justified.
>>>
>>>> I voted Leave, though I didn't expect Leave to win. I could have lived
>>>> with a Remain victory. Almost all of us could have and would have,
>>>> without resorting to anything remotely analogous to the industrial-scale
>>>> Remain whinging we have seen and heard over the last two years.
>>>
>>> You say "industrial-scale Remain whinging", I say "Remainers
>>> trying to explain why they think Brexit would be a bad idea".
>>
>> The time for that finished around midnight on 22nd June 2016. 07:00 the
>> next morning at a pinch.
>
> Is there some law against discussing Brexit?

What "discussion" are you talking about?

There has been little of it, but there have been a lot of ill-tempered
and intemperate attacks on those who voted in the forbidden way.

>> Thereafter, it was totally pointless because the referendum result is known.

> The number of votes cast is known, but the nature of Brexit
> is far from known. It may not even happen, or it could be
> anything between BrINO through to a hard, no deal Brexit.

What "discussion" are you talking about?

There has been nothing but denial, denial, denial (even you are doing
that, with your implication that the numbers don't mean anything), and
attacks on those believed to have voted the wrong way.

>> Have you ever experienced a period as long as two years after a General
>> Election where the losing side(s) have expended so much equally
>> pointless effort in trying to persuade the winners that it would be
>> better to vote for Brand X (despite the vote having already taken place)?

> Isn't that what politicians do quite a lot of, trying to persuade the
> voters that it would be better to vote for Brand X?

Oh... I didn't realise you were a member of the Shadow Cabinet.

What's your real name? Which portfolio do you manage?

[ ... ]

>> Cite any vote (in any election whether a GE or a Referendum) where that
>> was not done during the campaign.
>> It's carrying on with it (and especially the Remainers' childish
>> attempts at insult) after the result is known that is puzzling.
>> What IS the point in it?

[pensive hamster]

On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 01:31:52 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> pensive hamster wrote:
[...]
> >>> You say "industrial-scale Remain whinging", I say "Remainers
> >>> trying to explain why they think Brexit would be a bad idea".
> >>
> >> The time for that finished around midnight on 22nd June 2016. 07:00 the
> >> next morning at a pinch.
> >
> > Is there some law against discussing Brexit?
>
> What "discussion" are you talking about?

Various discussions about Brexit, in the media, in this newsgroup,
etc.

> There has been little of it,

There has been tons of discussion about Brexit, where have
you been?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Brexit+discussions
About 13,000,000 results

> but there have been a lot of ill-tempered
> and intemperate attacks on those who voted in the forbidden way.

There has been some of that, from both sides, eg. Mail
headline "Enemies of the People"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/daily-mail-nazi-propaganda-front-page-ipso-complaints-brexit-eu-enemies-of-the-people-a7409836.html
Daily Mail's 'Enemies of the People' front page receives
more than 1,000 complaints to IPSO

> >> Thereafter, it was totally pointless because the referendum result is known.
>
> > The number of votes cast is known, but the nature of Brexit
> > is far from known. It may not even happen, or it could be
> > anything between BrINO through to a hard, no deal Brexit.
>
> What "discussion" are you talking about?
>
> There has been nothing but denial, denial, denial (even you are doing
> that, with your implication that the numbers don't mean anything), and
> attacks on those believed to have voted the wrong way.

I didn't say or imply that the numbers don't mean anything,that
is your misinterpretation. I said "The number of votes cast is
known, but the nature of Brexit is far from known. ..."

In other words, the referendum provided no blueprint or roadmap
for Brexit, which is largely why there have been endless
discussions about Brexit, ministerial resignations, etc.

> >> Have you ever experienced a period as long as two years after a General
> >> Election where the losing side(s) have expended so much equally
> >> pointless effort in trying to persuade the winners that it would be
> >> better to vote for Brand X (despite the vote having already taken place)?
>
> > Isn't that what politicians do quite a lot of, trying to persuade the
> > voters that it would be better to vote for Brand X?
>
> Oh... I didn't realise you were a member of the Shadow Cabinet.

Huh? You think only politicians express opinions?

> What's your real name? Which portfolio do you manage?
>
> [ ... ]

[JNugent]

On 10/07/2018 16:35, pensive hamster wrote:
> On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 01:31:52 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> pensive hamster wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> You say "industrial-scale Remain whinging", I say "Remainers
>>>>> trying to explain why they think Brexit would be a bad idea".
>>>>
>>>> The time for that finished around midnight on 22nd June 2016. 07:00 the
>>>> next morning at a pinch.
>>>
>>> Is there some law against discussing Brexit?
>>
>> What "discussion" are you talking about?
>
> Various discussions about Brexit, in the media, in this newsgroup,
> etc.

Really? Where and when?

>> There has been little of it,
>
> There has been tons of discussion about Brexit, where have
> you been?

There has certainly been a lot of ill-tempered complaint from those who
would have preferred a different rsult, if that's what passes for
"discussion" round your way.

> https://www.google.com/search?q=Brexit+discussions
> About 13,000,000 results

>> but there have been a lot of ill-tempered
>> and intemperate attacks on those who voted in the forbidden way.
>
> There has been some of that, from both sides, eg. Mail
> headline "Enemies of the People"

There has been a lot of it, principally from the losing faction. Such as
there has been going in the opposite direction has largely been
retaliation (not ideal, but that's humanity for you).

> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/daily-mail-nazi-propaganda-front-page-ipso-complaints-brexit-eu-enemies-of-the-people-a7409836.html
> Daily Mail's 'Enemies of the People' front page receives
> more than 1,000 complaints to IPSO

As I recall, that headline was aimed at certain judges in a case where
their findings were unexpected and widely unwelcome (and, as it turned
out, pointless). They were not directed at people who happened to vote
for the UK to remain subjugated to the EU.

>>>> Thereafter, it was totally pointless because the referendum result is known.

>>> The number of votes cast is known, but the nature of Brexit
>>> is far from known. It may not even happen, or it could be
>>> anything between BrINO through to a hard, no deal Brexit.
>>
>> What "discussion" are you talking about?
>> There has been nothing but denial, denial, denial (even you are doing
>> that, with your implication that the numbers don't mean anything), and
>> attacks on those believed to have voted the wrong way.

> I didn't say or imply that the numbers don't mean anything,that
> is your misinterpretation. I said "The number of votes cast is
> known, but the nature of Brexit is far from known. ..."

> In other words, the referendum provided no blueprint or roadmap
> for Brexit, which is largely why there have been endless
> discussions about Brexit, ministerial resignations, etc.

The nature of the outcome is plain and obvious: the UK must leave the
EU. And that means (as any panel of judges would confirm) that the
difference must not be merely one of official classification and
terminology. The UK must simply no longer be subject to the rules and
laws of the EU and must be free, once again, to make its own laws - all
of them - via its own systems for lawmaking. We are certainly not there
yet..

>>>> Have you ever experienced a period as long as two years after a General
>>>> Election where the losing side(s) have expended so much equally
>>>> pointless effort in trying to persuade the winners that it would be
>>>> better to vote for Brand X (despite the vote having already taken place)?

>>> Isn't that what politicians do quite a lot of, trying to persuade the
>>> voters that it would be better to vote for Brand X?

>> Oh... I didn't realise you were a member of the Shadow Cabinet.
>
> Huh? You think only politicians express opinions?
>
>> What's your real name? Which portfolio do you manage?
>>
>> [ ... ]

[pamela]

On 00:14 11 Jul 2018, JNugent wrote:
>
>
>
> The nature of the outcome is plain and obvious: the UK must leave
> the EU.

That is true.

> And that means (as any panel of judges would confirm) that the
> difference must not be merely one of official classification and
> terminology.

That is conjecture.

> The UK must simply no longer be subject to the rules and laws of
> the EU and must be free, once again, to make its own laws

That is your claim.

> - all of them - via its own systems for lawmaking. We are
> certainly not there yet..

That is irrelevant because leaving is sufficient. The referendum
asked:

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union
or leave the European Union?"

Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union

Advice from the public about laws or sovereignty was not sought.

[Yellow]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 08:37:50 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
<***@hotmail.co.uk> posted:
>
> On Monday, 9 July 2018 16:05:52 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:

> > And all the dire predictions...?
>
> Brexit hasn't happened yet, so there isn't any evidence yet to
> support any of the predictions of either side, so far as I know.
>
> > An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax increases?
>
> OK, the emergency Budget idea was OTT, but, as far as I recall,
> it was only one person who predicted that.

But that single person had the power to bring it on so not as
insignificant as your "one person" disregard might paint it.


> There may need to be tax increases in order to maintain the
> same level of services if the economy falters. There has been
> some talk of tax increases to fund the NHS

Are you really trying to claim that the talked about tax increases for
the NHS are related to Brexit?

[pensive hamster]

On Monday, 9 July 2018 16:58:53 UTC+1, Yellow wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 08:37:50 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster posted:
> > On Monday, 9 July 2018 16:05:52 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>
> > > And all the dire predictions...?
> >
> > Brexit hasn't happened yet, so there isn't any evidence yet to
> > support any of the predictions of either side, so far as I know.
> >
> > > An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax increases?
> >
> > OK, the emergency Budget idea was OTT, but, as far as I recall,
> > it was only one person who predicted that.
>
> But that single person had the power to bring it on so not as
> insignificant as your "one person" disregard might paint it.
>
>
> > There may need to be tax increases in order to maintain the
> > same level of services if the economy falters. There has been
> > some talk of tax increases to fund the NHS
>
> Are you really trying to claim that the talked about tax increases for
> the NHS are related to Brexit?

I was relating it mostly to possible faltering of the economy, depending
how Brexit pans out.

I also think there would probably be less talk about tax increases for
the NHS if there was more evidence of an extra £350m pw actually
becoming available, and more confidence about a saving from a
reduction in health tourism, due to having greater control over
immigration.

And if there was less concern about that possible greater control
over immigration leading to increased difficulty and costs in
recruiting and retaining non-British staff for the NHS.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <***@News.Individual.NET>, Yellow
<***@none.com.invalid> writes
>On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 08:37:50 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
><***@hotmail.co.uk> posted:
>>
>> On Monday, 9 July 2018 16:05:52 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>
>> > And all the dire predictions...?
>>
>> Brexit hasn't happened yet, so there isn't any evidence yet to
>> support any of the predictions of either side, so far as I know.
>>
>> > An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax increases?
>>
>> OK, the emergency Budget idea was OTT, but, as far as I recall,
>> it was only one person who predicted that.
>
>But that single person had the power to bring it on so not as
>insignificant as your "one person" disregard might paint it.

It's strange how Brexiteers tend to latch onto what one person says
maybe just once - and thereafter keep quoting it as an absolute cast
iron promise that cannot ever be changed or retracted.
>
>
>> There may need to be tax increases in order to maintain the
>> same level of services if the economy falters. There has been
>> some talk of tax increases to fund the NHS
>
>Are you really trying to claim that the talked about tax increases for
>the NHS are related to Brexit?

To be honest, we've needed to pay a bit more tax for many years in order
to fund the health and other important services. While none if this has
been a direct consequence of our impending Brexit, any subsequent damage
to the economy (which seems likely) won't help our situation. And it's
obvious that any savings because of the Brexit Bonus/Bonanza won't
really materialise.
--
Ian

[kat]

On 09/07/2018 19:24, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <***@News.Individual.NET>, Yellow
> <***@none.com.invalid> writes
>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 08:37:50 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
>> <***@hotmail.co.uk> posted:
>>>
>>> On Monday, 9 July 2018 16:05:52 UTC+1, JNugent  wrote:
>>
>>> > And all the dire predictions...?
>>>
>>> Brexit hasn't happened yet, so there isn't any evidence yet to
>>> support any of the predictions of either side, so far as I know.
>>>
>>> > An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax increases?
>>>
>>> OK, the emergency Budget idea was OTT, but, as far as I recall,
>>> it was only one person who predicted that.
>>
>> But that single person had the power to bring it on so not as
>> insignificant as your "one person" disregard might paint it.
>
> It's strange how Brexiteers tend to latch onto what one person says maybe just
> once - and thereafter keep quoting it as an absolute cast iron promise that
> cannot ever be changed or retracted.

But it had the effect of scaring people into voting Remain - I have friends who
admit just that.

As to what actually happened - if he had really believed what he said, that
there would need to be that budget etc., then he should have stayed on and done
it. Clearly he didn't, he just happened to say it. Once. Or more.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <5JZ0D.1161928$***@fx23.am4>, kat
<***@hotmail.com> writes
>On 09/07/2018 19:24, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> In message <***@News.Individual.NET>, Yellow
>><***@none.com.invalid> writes
>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 08:37:50 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
>>> <***@hotmail.co.uk> posted:
>>>>
>>>> On Monday, 9 July 2018 16:05:52 UTC+1, JNugent  wrote:
>>>
>>>> > And all the dire predictions...?
>>>>
>>>> Brexit hasn't happened yet, so there isn't any evidence yet to
>>>> support any of the predictions of either side, so far as I know.
>>>>
>>>> > An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax increases?
>>>>
>>>> OK, the emergency Budget idea was OTT, but, as far as I recall,
>>>> it was only one person who predicted that.
>>>
>>> But that single person had the power to bring it on so not as
>>> insignificant as your "one person" disregard might paint it.
>> It's strange how Brexiteers tend to latch onto what one person says
>>maybe just once - and thereafter keep quoting it as an absolute cast
>>iron promise that cannot ever be changed or retracted.
>
>But it had the effect of scaring people into voting Remain - I have
>friends who admit just that.

Bollocks! They were easily 'scared'. However, there was a definite
possibility that the vote to leave could have immediately precipitated a
recession.

As it was, the vote was only 52/48 - so after an initial shock-horror
reaction, those who control these things probably realised that the
there was good chance that Brexit wouldn't happen - of if it did, would
be well watered-down. [This, after two years, seems to be what is
actually happening.] As a result, while the sky did show signs of
wobbling. it steadied itself and failed to fall.

On the other hand, if the result had been a decisive victory for the
leavers (say 60/40 or more), I think the situation would have been quite
different. The sky would almost certainly have crashed down on us, and
the economy would have rapidly collapsed.
>
>As to what actually happened - if he had really believed what he said,
>that there would need to be that budget etc., then he should have
>stayed on and done it. Clearly he didn't, he just happened to say it.
>Once. Or more.

Why should he carry out an emergency budget just because he predicted
(incorrectly) that one might be necessary?
>

--
Ian

[kat]

On 10/07/2018 11:23, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <5JZ0D.1161928$***@fx23.am4>, kat <***@hotmail.com>
> writes
>> On 09/07/2018 19:24, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> In message <***@News.Individual.NET>, Yellow
>>> <***@none.com.invalid> writes
>>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 08:37:50 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
>>>> <***@hotmail.co.uk> posted:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, 9 July 2018 16:05:52 UTC+1, JNugent  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > And all the dire predictions...?
>>>>>
>>>>> Brexit hasn't happened yet, so there isn't any evidence yet to
>>>>> support any of the predictions of either side, so far as I know.
>>>>>
>>>>> > An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax increases?
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, the emergency Budget idea was OTT, but, as far as I recall,
>>>>> it was only one person who predicted that.
>>>>
>>>> But that single person had the power to bring it on so not as
>>>> insignificant as your "one person" disregard might paint it.
>>>  It's strange how Brexiteers tend to latch onto what one person says maybe
>>> just  once - and thereafter keep quoting it as an absolute cast iron promise
>>> that  cannot ever be changed or retracted.
>>
>> But it had the effect of scaring people into voting Remain - I have friends
>> who admit just that.
>
> Bollocks! They were easily 'scared'. However, there was a definite possibility
> that the vote to leave could have immediately precipitated a recession.

You say "bollocks". You thinking that doesn't change that it happened. Easily
scared? Possibly. Thinking about the immediate effect on a pension plan about
to mature, with all the threats? Definitely. Fact of real effect - no problem.
Likelihood of changing vote now - 100%. One of the reasons why the vote would
change- people like you saying stuff like that. Insulting people for either the
way, or the reason, they voted ( whichever way), doesn't do a lot of good!


>
> As it was, the vote was only 52/48 - so after an initial shock-horror reaction,
> those who control these things probably realised that the there was good chance
> that Brexit wouldn't happen - of if it did, would be well watered-down. [This,
> after two years, seems to be what is actually happening.] As a result, while the
> sky did show signs of wobbling. it steadied itself and failed to fall.
>
> On the other hand, if the result had been a decisive victory for the leavers
> (say 60/40 or more), I think the situation would have been quite different. The
> sky would almost certainly have crashed down on us, and the economy would have
> rapidly collapsed.
>>
>> As to what actually happened - if he had really believed what he said, that
>> there would need to be that budget etc., then he should have stayed on and
>> done it.  Clearly he didn't, he just happened to say it. Once. Or more.
>
> Why should he carry out an emergency budget just because he predicted
> (incorrectly) that one might be necessary?
>>
>

An emergency budget had to be done fast - so he wouldn't have had time to know
it was unnecessary!

kat

[The Todal]

On 09/07/2018 16:05, JNugent wrote:
> On 09/07/2018 15:59, pensive hamster wrote:
>> On Monday, 9 July 2018 15:05:48 UTC+1, Fredxx  wrote:
>>> On 09/07/2018 13:56, pamela wrote:
>>>> On 11:57  8 Jul 2018, Vidcapper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 08/07/2018 09:08, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>> In message <U6i0D.1027625$%***@fx40.am4>, Vidcapper
>>>>>> <***@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>> On 07/07/2018 17:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The only difference between the Remainers and the Leavers is
>>>>>>>> that the former very occasionally offer do some new thoughtful
>>>>>>>> analysis, and occasionally make suggestions for overcoming the
>>>>>>>> ever-appearing problems - while the latter usually simply chant
>>>>>>>> the same old stuff as they have been for the past two years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do Remainers seem to think that every one of the 17.4m
>>>>>>> Leaver voters should have had a precisely formulated plan for
>>>>>>> Brexit, before we'd even voted?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Uh? 'Formulated plan'? It's unlikely that many leave voters had
>>>>>> the faintest idea of the consequences of leaving the EU, or how
>>>>>> we could go about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> But we aren't required to know that, that's the point - we make a
>>>>> choice and it's up to the politicians to implement it.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, that is specifically stated in the gov'ts taxpeyer-funded
>>>>> Remain propaganda sheet : See the section : A Once In A Geberation
>>>>> Decision 'This is your decision. The Government will implement
>>>>> what you decide.'
>>>>
>>>> Th erefernsum asked: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of
>>>> the European Union or leave the European Union?"  The decision was
>>>> to leave the EU.  Neither more nor less.  The government is
>>>> implementing that.
>>>
>>> For once I agree with you. But every time Brexiters are derided and
>>> abused by those here and elsewhere, it simply further polarises
>>> opinions.
>>
>> Do you think the frequent references to "Remoaners",
>> "Project Fear", etc. don't also tend to polarise opinions?
>
> But is either phrase unreasonable?
>
> I voted Leave, though I didn't expect Leave to win. I could have lived
> with a Remain victory. Almost all of us could have and would have,
> without resorting to anything remotely analogous to the industrial-scale
> Remain whinging we have seen and heard over the last two years.
>
> And all the dire predictions...?
>
> An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax increases?
>
> Were they accurate?
>
> Weren't they rather fabrications designed to frighten?
>

Those predictions came from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were
proof, if any was needed, that no government however experienced and
skilled can actually predict the consequences of Brexit.

You may say that's a good reason to ignore all the experts and plough
on. I'm inclined to the opposite viewpoint.

[JNugent]

On 09/07/2018 18:43, The Todal wrote:
> On 09/07/2018 16:05, JNugent wrote:
>> On 09/07/2018 15:59, pensive hamster wrote:
>>> On Monday, 9 July 2018 15:05:48 UTC+1, Fredxx wrote:
>>>> On 09/07/2018 13:56, pamela wrote:
>>>>> On 11:57 8 Jul 2018, Vidcapper wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 08/07/2018 09:08, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <U6i0D.1027625$%***@fx40.am4>, Vidcapper
>>>>>>> <***@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>>> On 07/07/2018 17:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only difference between the Remainers and the Leavers is
>>>>>>>>> that the former very occasionally offer do some new thoughtful
>>>>>>>>> analysis, and occasionally make suggestions for overcoming the
>>>>>>>>> ever-appearing problems - while the latter usually simply chant
>>>>>>>>> the same old stuff as they have been for the past two years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do Remainers seem to think that every one of the 17.4m
>>>>>>>> Leaver voters should have had a precisely formulated plan for
>>>>>>>> Brexit, before we'd even voted?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Uh? 'Formulated plan'? It's unlikely that many leave voters had
>>>>>>> the faintest idea of the consequences of leaving the EU, or how
>>>>>>> we could go about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But we aren't required to know that, that's the point - we make a
>>>>>> choice and it's up to the politicians to implement it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact, that is specifically stated in the gov'ts taxpeyer-funded
>>>>>> Remain propaganda sheet : See the section : A Once In A Geberation
>>>>>> Decision 'This is your decision. The Government will implement
>>>>>> what you decide.'
>>>>>
>>>>> Th erefernsum asked: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of
>>>>> the European Union or leave the European Union?" The decision was
>>>>> to leave the EU. Neither more nor less. The government is
>>>>> implementing that.
>>>>
>>>> For once I agree with you. But every time Brexiters are derided and
>>>> abused by those here and elsewhere, it simply further polarises
>>>> opinions.
>>>
>>> Do you think the frequent references to "Remoaners",
>>> "Project Fear", etc. don't also tend to polarise opinions?
>>
>> But is either phrase unreasonable?
>>
>> I voted Leave, though I didn't expect Leave to win. I could have lived
>> with a Remain victory. Almost all of us could have and would have,
>> without resorting to anything remotely analogous to the
>> industrial-scale Remain whinging we have seen and heard over the last
>> two years.
>>
>> And all the dire predictions...?
>>
>> An emergency Budget on the Friday afternoon? Tax increases?
>>
>> Were they accurate?
>>
>> Weren't they rather fabrications designed to frighten?
>>
>
> Those predictions came from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were
> proof, if any was needed, that no government however experienced and
> skilled can actually predict the consequences of Brexit.
>
> You may say that's a good reason to ignore all the experts and plough
> on. I'm inclined to the opposite viewpoint.

So you wouldn't have joined in the first place, preferring to default to
the status quo?

[pamela]

On 15:05 9 Jul 2018, Fredxx wrote:

> On 09/07/2018 13:56, pamela wrote:
>> On 11:57 8 Jul 2018, Vidcapper wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/07/2018 09:08, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>> In message <U6i0D.1027625$%***@fx40.am4>, Vidcapper
>>>> <***@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>>>> On 07/07/2018 17:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only difference between the Remainers and the Leavers is
>>>>>> that the former very occasionally offer do some new
>>>>>> thoughtful analysis, and occasionally make suggestions for
>>>>>> overcoming the ever-appearing problems - while the latter
>>>>>> usually simply chant the same old stuff as they have been for
>>>>>> the past two years.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do Remainers seem to think that every one of the 17.4m
>>>>> Leaver voters should have had a precisely formulated plan for
>>>>> Brexit, before we'd even voted?
>>>>
>>>> Uh? 'Formulated plan'? It's unlikely that many leave voters had
>>>> the faintest idea of the consequences of leaving the EU, or how
>>>> we could go about it.
>>>
>>> But we aren't required to know that, that's the point - we make
>>> a choice and it's up to the politicians to implement it.
>>>
>>> In fact, that is specifically stated in the gov'ts
>>> taxpeyer-funded Remain propaganda sheet : See the section : A
>>> Once In A Geberation Decision 'This is your decision. The
>>> Government will implement what you decide.'
>>
>> Th erefernsum asked: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member
>> of the European Union or leave the European Union?" The decision
>> was to leave the EU. Neither more nor less. The government is
>> implementing that.
>
> For once I agree with you. But every time Brexiters are derided
> and abused by those here and elsewhere, it simply further
> polarises opinions.
>
> > One Leave MP was moaning that Theresa May's latest package was
> > "not what 17.4 million people were promised". He must be
> > deluding himself into thinking irresponsible campaign lies,
> > partly funded by Russophiles, and coming from all manner of
> > extremist lobby groups somehow constitute a promise binding on a
> > government.
>
> I could have expected you to resort to name calling as you have no
> other argument.
>
> You conveniently ignore Project Fear and the lobbyists that funded
> the Remain campaign. Even Obama had his say. Would you agree that
> Remain was supported by Usaphiles? That's without the UK
> government writing to everyone and more EU lobbyists like George
> Soros.

We have already heard the pro-Russia arguments from those who want
to defend Russian involvement in the US elections. Trump's victory
was wafer thin and would probably not have been possible without
Russian assistance

There are similarities with Brexit:

Small majority.
Covert Russian involvement.
Russia defended by those who want the referendum to say Brexit.
A weak EU suits Russia's agenda.

[pamela]

On 11:57 8 Jul 2018, Vidcapper wrote:

> On 08/07/2018 09:08, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> In message <U6i0D.1027625$%***@fx40.am4>, Vidcapper
>> <***@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>> On 07/07/2018 17:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The only difference between the Remainers and the Leavers is
>>>> that the former very occasionally offer do some new thoughtful
>>>> analysis, and occasionally make suggestions for overcoming the
>>>> ever-appearing problems - while the latter usually simply chant
>>>> the same old stuff as they have been for the past two years.
>>>
>>> Why do Remainers seem to think that every one of the 17.4m
>>> Leaver voters should have had a precisely formulated plan for
>>> Brexit, before we'd even voted?
>>
>> Uh? 'Formulated plan'? It's unlikely that many leave voters had
>> the faintest idea of the consequences of leaving the EU, or how
>> we could go about it.
>
> But we aren't required to know that, that's the point - we make a
> choice and it's up to the politicians to implement it.
>
> In fact, that is specifically stated in the gov'ts taxpeyer-funded
> Remain propaganda sheet : See the section : A Once In A Geberation
> Decision 'This is your decision. The Government will implement
> what you decide.'

Th erefernsum asked: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of
the European Union or leave the European Union?" The decision was
to leave the EU. Neither more nor less. The government is
implementing that.

One Leave MP was moaning that Theresa May's latest package was "not
what 17.4 million people were promised". He must be deluding
himself into thinking irresponsible campaign lies, partly funded by
Russophiles, and coming from all manner of extremist lobby groups
somehow constitute a promise binding on a government.

He should have read the referendum question.






--

Brexit is a massive con job. Now the wheels are coming off the
Brexit clown car.

[Phi]

+ACI-AndyW+ACI- +ADw-Andy+AEA-nojunqmail.com+AD4- wrote in message
news:jKD+ACU-C.1080479+ACQ-tw.814573+AEA-fx42.am4...
+AD4- On 06/07/2018 05:13, FMurtz wrote:
+AD4APg- Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with pages
+AD4APg- and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
+AD4APg- What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
+AD4APg- smattering of loons
+AD4-
+AD4- This is the only group where I use filters and I have only started using
+AD4- filters in the last 3 or 4 years.
+AD4- The group has really changed since the brexit vote.
+AD4-
+AD4- The signal to noise ratio has really crashed through the floor.
+AD4-
+AD4- Andy


I filter about 16 posters and that leaves a reasonable selection of
interesting posts.

[Incubus]

On 2018-07-06, FMurtz <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with pages
> and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
> smattering of loons

Hence why the majority of posts get filtered by my newsreader.

[Yellow]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:13:22 +1000, FMurtz <***@hotmail.com> posted:
>
> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with pages
> and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
> smattering of loons

I use filters and my bozo bin and that cuts through 90% of the crap.

But why people want to destroy this still lively group when usenet is
now so fragile, only they can tell us.

[Incubus]

On 2018-07-06, Yellow <***@none.com.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:13:22 +1000, FMurtz <***@hotmail.com> posted:
>>
>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with pages
>> and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
>> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
>> smattering of loons
>
> I use filters and my bozo bin and that cuts through 90% of the crap.
>
> But why people want to destroy this still lively group when usenet is
> now so fragile, only they can tell us.

Such acting out isn't tolerated on other forums such as Twitter and Facebook
for very long and it is easier to do so while retaining anonymity on Usenet.
Fortunately, it is easier for newsgroup members themselves to deal with rather
than relying on Big Brother to do it.

[Omega]

On 06/07/2018 12:56, Yellow wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:13:22 +1000, FMurtz <***@hotmail.com> posted:
>>
>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with pages
>> and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
>> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
>> smattering of loons
>
> I use filters and my bozo bin and that cuts through 90% of the crap.
>
> But why people want to destroy this still lively group when usenet is
> now so fragile, only they can tell us.
>


I have Eternal September and doesn't appear to have these filters/kill
files you speak about unless I haven't looked hard enough.

Till now I have never really wanted to filter out fellow posters as
sometimes even the most seasoned idiot has something to say and
sometimes entertaining anyway but must confess now, it's bloody irksome
with some of our characters these days!

Some very busy groups I belonged to years ago have now disappeared with
lack of use and fear this will go the same way.

omega

[BurfordTJustice]

The filters would be in YOUR news reader not the server.



"Omega" <***@last.com> wrote in message news:phnmqp$27u$***@dont-email.me...
: On 06/07/2018 12:56, Yellow wrote:
: > On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:13:22 +1000, FMurtz <***@hotmail.com> posted:
: >>
: >> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with pages
: >> and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
: >> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
: >> smattering of loons
: >
: > I use filters and my bozo bin and that cuts through 90% of the crap.
: >
: > But why people want to destroy this still lively group when usenet is
: > now so fragile, only they can tell us.
: >
:
:
: I have Eternal September and doesn't appear to have these filters/kill
: files you speak about unless I haven't looked hard enough.
:
: Till now I have never really wanted to filter out fellow posters as
: sometimes even the most seasoned idiot has something to say and
: sometimes entertaining anyway but must confess now, it's bloody irksome
: with some of our characters these days!
:
: Some very busy groups I belonged to years ago have now disappeared with
: lack of use and fear this will go the same way.
:
: omega
:
:

[Incubus]

On 2018-07-06, Omega <***@last.com> wrote:
> On 06/07/2018 12:56, Yellow wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:13:22 +1000, FMurtz <***@hotmail.com> posted:
>>>
>>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with pages
>>> and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
>>> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
>>> smattering of loons
>>
>> I use filters and my bozo bin and that cuts through 90% of the crap.
>>
>> But why people want to destroy this still lively group when usenet is
>> now so fragile, only they can tell us.
>>
>
>
> I have Eternal September and doesn't appear to have these filters/kill
> files you speak about unless I haven't looked hard enough.

Kill files are a function of your newsreader. The better ones are highly
configurable in terms of pattern matching.

[Martin Brown]

On 06/07/2018 13:20, Omega wrote:
> On 06/07/2018 12:56, Yellow wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:13:22 +1000, FMurtz <***@hotmail.com> posted:
>>>
>>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with pages
>>> and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
>>> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
>>> smattering of loons
>>
>> I use filters and my bozo bin and that cuts through 90% of the crap.
>>
>> But why people want to destroy this still lively group when usenet is
>> now so fragile, only they can tell us.
>>
> I have Eternal September and doesn't appear to have these filters/kill
> files you speak about unless I haven't looked hard enough.

The filters are in your local news client not the news server (although
some commercial servers honour third party cancels of injected spam).
>
> Till now I have never really wanted to filter out fellow posters as
> sometimes even the most seasoned idiot has something to say and
> sometimes entertaining anyway but must confess now, it's bloody irksome
> with some of our characters these days!
>
> Some very busy groups I belonged to years ago have now disappeared with
> lack of use and fear this will go the same way.

In Thunderbird you can make a filter based on a message you don't like
and even add header keywords to the available options. Right click on
the from poster field of the message and select "create filter from".

Be careful you don't cause collateral damage!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Ophelia]

"Omega" wrote in message news:phnmqp$27u$***@dont-email.me...

On 06/07/2018 12:56, Yellow wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:13:22 +1000, FMurtz <***@hotmail.com> posted:
>>
>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with pages
>> and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
>> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
>> smattering of loons
>
> I use filters and my bozo bin and that cuts through 90% of the crap.
>
> But why people want to destroy this still lively group when usenet is
> now so fragile, only they can tell us.
>


I have Eternal September and doesn't appear to have these filters/kill
files you speak about unless I haven't looked hard enough.

Till now I have never really wanted to filter out fellow posters as
sometimes even the most seasoned idiot has something to say and
sometimes entertaining anyway but must confess now, it's bloody irksome
with some of our characters these days!

Some very busy groups I belonged to years ago have now disappeared with
lack of use and fear this will go the same way.

omega

==

I must admit that whenever I open a group (not just this one) I go down the
names and mark as read any that I have no interest in reading. Of those I
do read, I read everything they post but don't always feel the need to
comment.

My filter does work but I find this easier and the filter is not always
good.

[Fredxx]

On 06/07/2018 16:04, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Omega"  wrote in message news:phnmqp$27u$***@dont-email.me...
>
> On 06/07/2018 12:56, Yellow wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:13:22 +1000, FMurtz <***@hotmail.com> posted:
>>>
>>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with pages
>>> and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
>>> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
>>> smattering of loons
>>
>> I use filters and my bozo bin and that cuts through 90% of the crap.
>>
>> But why people want to destroy this still lively group when usenet is
>> now so fragile, only they can tell us.
>>
>
>
> I have Eternal September and doesn't appear to have these filters/kill
> files you speak about unless I haven't looked hard enough.
>
> Till now I have never really wanted to filter out fellow posters as
> sometimes even the most seasoned idiot has something to say and
> sometimes entertaining anyway but must confess now, it's bloody irksome
> with some of our characters these days!
>
> Some very busy groups I belonged to years ago have now disappeared with
> lack of use and fear this will go the same way.
>
> omega
>
> ==
>
> I must admit that whenever I open a group (not just this one) I go down
> the names and mark as read any that I have no interest in reading.  Of
> those I do read, I read everything they post but don't always feel the
> need to comment.
>
> My filter does work but I find this easier and the filter is not always
> good.

It looks you are posting through individual.net and using Live Mail for
your newsreader.

I can recommend Thunderbird where you can filter out posts by named
individuals, or even whole topics and threads started by those obsessed
with say Brexit and who contribute nothing else to the group.

[Ophelia]

"Fredxx" wrote in message news:phq5fm$vp1$***@dont-email.me...

On 06/07/2018 16:04, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Omega" wrote in message news:phnmqp$27u$***@dont-email.me...
>
> On 06/07/2018 12:56, Yellow wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:13:22 +1000, FMurtz <***@hotmail.com> posted:
>>>
>>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with pages
>>> and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
>>> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
>>> smattering of loons
>>
>> I use filters and my bozo bin and that cuts through 90% of the crap.
>>
>> But why people want to destroy this still lively group when usenet is
>> now so fragile, only they can tell us.
>>
>
>
> I have Eternal September and doesn't appear to have these filters/kill
> files you speak about unless I haven't looked hard enough.
>
> Till now I have never really wanted to filter out fellow posters as
> sometimes even the most seasoned idiot has something to say and
> sometimes entertaining anyway but must confess now, it's bloody irksome
> with some of our characters these days!
>
> Some very busy groups I belonged to years ago have now disappeared with
> lack of use and fear this will go the same way.
>
> omega
>
> ==
>
> I must admit that whenever I open a group (not just this one) I go down
> the names and mark as read any that I have no interest in reading. Of
> those I do read, I read everything they post but don't always feel the
> need to comment.
>
> My filter does work but I find this easier and the filter is not always
> good.

It looks you are posting through individual.net and using Live Mail for
your newsreader.

Yes, I am:)

I can recommend Thunderbird where you can filter out posts by named
individuals, or even whole topics and threads started by those obsessed
with say Brexit and who contribute nothing else to the group.

Thank you, but I don't only 'mark as read' posters, but also whole
subjects in which I have no interest.

I think I might be getting a bit too old to learn a load of new things
like Thunderbird. I started out with Dos computers and I feel I might have
progressed enough:)

If I started to get a lot of problems though, I might get back to you
for
advice:)

Thanks again:))

[FMurtz]

Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Fredxx"  wrote in message news:phq5fm$vp1$***@dont-email.me...
>
> On 06/07/2018 16:04, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Omega"  wrote in message news:phnmqp$27u$***@dont-email.me...
>>
>> On 06/07/2018 12:56, Yellow wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:13:22 +1000, FMurtz <***@hotmail.com> posted:
>>>>
>>>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with pages
>>>> and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
>>>> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
>>>> smattering of loons
>>>
>>> I use filters and my bozo bin and that cuts through 90% of the crap.
>>>
>>> But why people want to destroy this still lively group when usenet is
>>> now so fragile, only they can tell us.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have Eternal September and doesn't appear to have these filters/kill
>> files you speak about unless I haven't looked hard enough.
>>
>> Till now I have never really wanted to filter out fellow posters as
>> sometimes even the most seasoned idiot has something to say and
>> sometimes entertaining anyway but must confess now, it's bloody irksome
>> with some of our characters these days!
>>
>> Some very busy groups I belonged to years ago have now disappeared with
>> lack of use and fear this will go the same way.
>>
>> omega
>>
>> ==
>>
>> I must admit that whenever I open a group (not just this one) I go down
>> the names and mark as read any that I have no interest in reading.  Of
>> those I do read, I read everything they post but don't always feel the
>> need to comment.
>>
>> My filter does work but I find this easier and the filter is not always
>> good.
>
> It looks you are posting through individual.net and using Live Mail for
> your newsreader.
>
>     Yes, I am:)
>
> I can recommend Thunderbird where you can filter out posts by named
> individuals, or even whole topics and threads started by those obsessed
> with say Brexit and who contribute nothing else to the group.
>
>     Thank you, but I don't only 'mark as read' posters, but also whole
> subjects in which I have no interest.
>
>     I think I might be getting a bit too old to learn  a load of new
> things
> like Thunderbird.  I started out with Dos computers and I feel I might have
> progressed enough:)
>
>     If I started to get a lot of problems though, I might get back to
> you for
> advice:)
>
>     Thanks again:))
>
>
My news reader allows me to just hit the K key on the header and it
marks it for removal so when the same poster has a long bank of post
after post or all capitals I highlight the first, go to the last, hold
shift key down and hit the last of the whole bank, this highlights the
multiple lot and then hit the K key, this marks the lot and they are
gone next time I visit.
This is a pity as a few of BurfordTJustices posts are interesting but
the lot get K ed.

[Ophelia]

"FMurtz" wrote in message news:uj50D.250844$***@fx14.iad...

Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Fredxx" wrote in message news:phq5fm$vp1$***@dont-email.me...
>
> On 06/07/2018 16:04, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Omega" wrote in message news:phnmqp$27u$***@dont-email.me...
>>
>> On 06/07/2018 12:56, Yellow wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:13:22 +1000, FMurtz <***@hotmail.com> posted:
>>>>
>>>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with pages
>>>> and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
>>>> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
>>>> smattering of loons
>>>
>>> I use filters and my bozo bin and that cuts through 90% of the crap.
>>>
>>> But why people want to destroy this still lively group when usenet is
>>> now so fragile, only they can tell us.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have Eternal September and doesn't appear to have these filters/kill
>> files you speak about unless I haven't looked hard enough.
>>
>> Till now I have never really wanted to filter out fellow posters as
>> sometimes even the most seasoned idiot has something to say and
>> sometimes entertaining anyway but must confess now, it's bloody irksome
>> with some of our characters these days!
>>
>> Some very busy groups I belonged to years ago have now disappeared with
>> lack of use and fear this will go the same way.
>>
>> omega
>>
>> ==
>>
>> I must admit that whenever I open a group (not just this one) I go down
>> the names and mark as read any that I have no interest in reading. Of
>> those I do read, I read everything they post but don't always feel the
>> need to comment.
>>
>> My filter does work but I find this easier and the filter is not always
>> good.
>
> It looks you are posting through individual.net and using Live Mail for
> your newsreader.
>
> Yes, I am:)
>
> I can recommend Thunderbird where you can filter out posts by named
> individuals, or even whole topics and threads started by those obsessed
> with say Brexit and who contribute nothing else to the group.
>
> Thank you, but I don't only 'mark as read' posters, but also whole
> subjects in which I have no interest.
>
> I think I might be getting a bit too old to learn a load of new
> things
> like Thunderbird. I started out with Dos computers and I feel I might
> have
> progressed enough:)
>
> If I started to get a lot of problems though, I might get back to you
> for
> advice:)
>
> Thanks again:))
>
>
My news reader allows me to just hit the K key on the header and it
marks it for removal so when the same poster has a long bank of post
after post or all capitals I highlight the first, go to the last, hold
shift key down and hit the last of the whole bank, this highlights the
multiple lot and then hit the K key, this marks the lot and they are
gone next time I visit.

Sounds easy:)

This is a pity as a few of BurfordTJustices posts are interesting but
the lot get K ed.

Well I simply don't read them

[Fredxx]

On 07/07/2018 14:37, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Fredxx" wrote in message news:phq5fm$vp1$***@dont-email.me...
>
> On 06/07/2018 16:04, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Omega" wrote in message news:phnmqp$27u$***@dont-email.me...
>>
>> On 06/07/2018 12:56, Yellow wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:13:22 +1000, FMurtz <***@hotmail.com>
>>> posted:
>>>>
>>>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate
>>>> with pages and pages of headers with one interesting one every
>>>> so often. What with posters posting bulk headers one after an
>>>> other and the smattering of loons
>>>
>>> I use filters and my bozo bin and that cuts through 90% of the
>>> crap.
>>>
>>> But why people want to destroy this still lively group when
>>> usenet is now so fragile, only they can tell us.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have Eternal September and doesn't appear to have these
>> filters/kill files you speak about unless I haven't looked hard
>> enough.
>>
>> Till now I have never really wanted to filter out fellow posters
>> as sometimes even the most seasoned idiot has something to say and
>> sometimes entertaining anyway but must confess now, it's bloody
>> irksome with some of our characters these days!
>>
>> Some very busy groups I belonged to years ago have now disappeared
>> with lack of use and fear this will go the same way.
>>
>> omega
>>
>> ==
>>
>> I must admit that whenever I open a group (not just this one) I go
>> down the names and mark as read any that I have no interest in
>> reading. Of those I do read, I read everything they post but don't
>> always feel the need to comment.
>>
>> My filter does work but I find this easier and the filter is not
>> always good.
>
> It looks you are posting through individual.net and using Live Mail
> for your newsreader.
>
> Yes, I am:)
>
> I can recommend Thunderbird where you can filter out posts by named
> individuals, or even whole topics and threads started by those
> obsessed with say Brexit and who contribute nothing else to the
> group.
>
> Thank you, but I don't only 'mark as read' posters, but also whole
> subjects in which I have no interest.
>
> I think I might be getting a bit too old to learn a load of new
> things like Thunderbird. I started out with Dos computers and I feel
> I might have progressed enough:)
>
> If I started to get a lot of problems though, I might get back to you
> for advice:)
>
> Thanks again:))

First of all pleasure.

I used to find Windows Live flaky and this was the main reason I moved
to TB. The learning curve is not steep. TB has a semi-automated
way/wizard of adding news servers and configuring email accounts.

Plus few people here use your, now rather dated, client.

[Ophelia]

"Fredxx" wrote in message news:phqo7q$nvt$***@dont-email.me...

On 07/07/2018 14:37, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Fredxx" wrote in message news:phq5fm$vp1$***@dont-email.me...
>
> On 06/07/2018 16:04, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Omega" wrote in message news:phnmqp$27u$***@dont-email.me...
>>
>> On 06/07/2018 12:56, Yellow wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:13:22 +1000, FMurtz <***@hotmail.com>
>>> posted:
>>>>
>>>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate
>>>> with pages and pages of headers with one interesting one every
>>>> so often. What with posters posting bulk headers one after an
>>>> other and the smattering of loons
>>>
>>> I use filters and my bozo bin and that cuts through 90% of the
>>> crap.
>>>
>>> But why people want to destroy this still lively group when
>>> usenet is now so fragile, only they can tell us.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have Eternal September and doesn't appear to have these
>> filters/kill files you speak about unless I haven't looked hard
>> enough.
>>
>> Till now I have never really wanted to filter out fellow posters
>> as sometimes even the most seasoned idiot has something to say and
>> sometimes entertaining anyway but must confess now, it's bloody
>> irksome with some of our characters these days!
>>
>> Some very busy groups I belonged to years ago have now disappeared
>> with lack of use and fear this will go the same way.
>>
>> omega
>>
>> ==
>>
>> I must admit that whenever I open a group (not just this one) I go
>> down the names and mark as read any that I have no interest in
>> reading. Of those I do read, I read everything they post but don't
>> always feel the need to comment.
>>
>> My filter does work but I find this easier and the filter is not
>> always good.
>
> It looks you are posting through individual.net and using Live Mail
> for your newsreader.
>
> Yes, I am:)
>
> I can recommend Thunderbird where you can filter out posts by named
> individuals, or even whole topics and threads started by those
> obsessed with say Brexit and who contribute nothing else to the
> group.
>
> Thank you, but I don't only 'mark as read' posters, but also whole
> subjects in which I have no interest.
>
> I think I might be getting a bit too old to learn a load of new things
> like Thunderbird. I started out with Dos computers and I feel
> I might have progressed enough:)
>
> If I started to get a lot of problems though, I might get back to you
> for advice:)
>
> Thanks again:))

First of all pleasure.

I used to find Windows Live flaky and this was the main reason I moved
to TB. The learning curve is not steep. TB has a semi-automated
way/wizard of adding news servers and configuring email accounts.

Plus few people here use your, now rather dated, client.

==

I bought a Win10 computer and hated it:( My kind husband took it off my
hands and I bought a second hand one with Win 7 installed:))

It is a bit annoying that it won't do chevrons, but I manage:)

[Fredxx]

On 07/07/2018 17:37, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Fredxx"  wrote in message news:phqo7q$nvt$***@dont-email.me...
>
> On 07/07/2018 14:37, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Fredxx"  wrote in message news:phq5fm$vp1$***@dont-email.me...
>>
>> On 06/07/2018 16:04, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Omega"  wrote in message news:phnmqp$27u$***@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> On 06/07/2018 12:56, Yellow wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:13:22 +1000, FMurtz <***@hotmail.com>
>>>> posted:
>>>>>
>>>>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate
>>>>> with pages and pages of headers with one interesting one every
>>>>> so often. What with posters posting bulk headers one after an
>>>>> other and the smattering of loons
>>>>
>>>> I use filters and my bozo bin and that cuts through 90% of the
>>>> crap.
>>>>
>>>> But why people want to destroy this still lively group when
>>>> usenet is now so fragile, only they can tell us.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have Eternal September and doesn't appear to have these
>>> filters/kill files you speak about unless I haven't looked hard
>>> enough.
>>>
>>> Till now I have never really wanted to filter out fellow posters
>>> as sometimes even the most seasoned idiot has something to say and
>>> sometimes entertaining anyway but must confess now, it's bloody
>>> irksome with some of our characters these days!
>>>
>>> Some very busy groups I belonged to years ago have now disappeared
>>> with lack of use and fear this will go the same way.
>>>
>>> omega
>>>
>>> ==
>>>
>>> I must admit that whenever I open a group (not just this one) I go
>>> down the names and mark as read any that I have no interest in
>>> reading.  Of those I do read, I read everything they post but don't
>>> always feel the need to comment.
>>>
>>> My filter does work but I find this easier and the filter is not
>>> always good.
>>
>> It looks you are posting through individual.net and using Live Mail
>> for your newsreader.
>>
>> Yes, I am:)
>>
>> I can recommend Thunderbird where you can filter out posts by named
>> individuals, or even whole topics and threads started by those
>> obsessed with say Brexit and who contribute nothing else to the
>> group.
>>
>> Thank you, but I don't only 'mark as read' posters, but also whole
>> subjects in which I have no interest.
>>
>> I think I might be getting a bit too old to learn  a load of new
>> things like Thunderbird.  I started out with Dos computers and I feel
>> I might have progressed enough:)
>>
>> If I started to get a lot of problems though, I might get back to you
>> for advice:)
>>
>> Thanks again:))
>
> First of all pleasure.
>
> I used to find Windows Live flaky and this was the main reason I moved
> to TB. The learning curve is not steep. TB has a semi-automated
> way/wizard of adding news servers and configuring email accounts.
>
> Plus few people here use your, now rather dated, client.
>
> ==
>
> I bought a Win10 computer and hated it:(  My kind husband took it off my
> hands and I bought a second hand one with Win 7 installed:))
>
> It is a bit annoying that it won't do chevrons, but I manage:)

There is nothing wrong with Windows 7. Most software, including
Thunderbird, runs as happily on Win7 as it does on Win10.

[Ophelia]

"Fredxx" wrote in message news:phqsba$h2g$***@dont-email.me...

On 07/07/2018 17:37, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Fredxx" wrote in message news:phqo7q$nvt$***@dont-email.me...
>
> On 07/07/2018 14:37, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Fredxx" wrote in message news:phq5fm$vp1$***@dont-email.me...
>>
>> On 06/07/2018 16:04, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Omega" wrote in message news:phnmqp$27u$***@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> On 06/07/2018 12:56, Yellow wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:13:22 +1000, FMurtz <***@hotmail.com>
>>>> posted:
>>>>>
>>>>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate
>>>>> with pages and pages of headers with one interesting one every
>>>>> so often. What with posters posting bulk headers one after an
>>>>> other and the smattering of loons
>>>>
>>>> I use filters and my bozo bin and that cuts through 90% of the
>>>> crap.
>>>>
>>>> But why people want to destroy this still lively group when
>>>> usenet is now so fragile, only they can tell us.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have Eternal September and doesn't appear to have these
>>> filters/kill files you speak about unless I haven't looked hard
>>> enough.
>>>
>>> Till now I have never really wanted to filter out fellow posters
>>> as sometimes even the most seasoned idiot has something to say and
>>> sometimes entertaining anyway but must confess now, it's bloody
>>> irksome with some of our characters these days!
>>>
>>> Some very busy groups I belonged to years ago have now disappeared
>>> with lack of use and fear this will go the same way.
>>>
>>> omega
>>>
>>> ==
>>>
>>> I must admit that whenever I open a group (not just this one) I go
>>> down the names and mark as read any that I have no interest in
>>> reading. Of those I do read, I read everything they post but don't
>>> always feel the need to comment.
>>>
>>> My filter does work but I find this easier and the filter is not
>>> always good.
>>
>> It looks you are posting through individual.net and using Live Mail
>> for your newsreader.
>>
>> Yes, I am:)
>>
>> I can recommend Thunderbird where you can filter out posts by named
>> individuals, or even whole topics and threads started by those
>> obsessed with say Brexit and who contribute nothing else to the
>> group.
>>
>> Thank you, but I don't only 'mark as read' posters, but also whole
>> subjects in which I have no interest.
>>
>> I think I might be getting a bit too old to learn a load of new
>> things like Thunderbird. I started out with Dos computers and I feel
>> I might have progressed enough:)
>>
>> If I started to get a lot of problems though, I might get back to you
>> for advice:)
>>
>> Thanks again:))
>
> First of all pleasure.
>
> I used to find Windows Live flaky and this was the main reason I moved
> to TB. The learning curve is not steep. TB has a semi-automated
> way/wizard of adding news servers and configuring email accounts.
>
> Plus few people here use your, now rather dated, client.
>
> ==
>
> I bought a Win10 computer and hated it:( My kind husband took it off my
> hands and I bought a second hand one with Win 7 installed:))
>
> It is a bit annoying that it won't do chevrons, but I manage:)

There is nothing wrong with Windows 7. Most software, including
Thunderbird, runs as happily on Win7 as it does on Win10.

==

Oh? I didn't know that.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <***@mid.individual.net>, Ophelia
<***@gmail.com> writes




>
>I bought a Win10 computer and hated it:( My kind husband took it off
>my hands and I bought a second hand one with Win 7 installed:))
>
>It is a bit annoying that it won't do chevrons, but I manage:)

Oh yes it will! There's an addon called 'Quote Colors' that restores the
traditional chevrons. I have it all documented, and if you are
interested I can dig it out to send to you (and anyone else who's
interested).

One slight snag it that it only officially works only up to something
like TB Version 3.1 (which must have been when David Cameron was still
in nappies!). However, this can (or certainly could) be fairly easily
overcome. Fresh installs of QC certainly worked up to TB versions in the
40s, and it is unaffected by subsequent version upgrades (I'm now on
V52.9.0).
>
>

--
Ian

[Ophelia]

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message news:Jo45kQBR2QQbFwU$@brattleho.plus.com...

In message <***@mid.individual.net>, Ophelia
<***@gmail.com> writes




>
>I bought a Win10 computer and hated it:( My kind husband took it off my
>hands and I bought a second hand one with Win 7 installed:))
>
>It is a bit annoying that it won't do chevrons, but I manage:)

Oh yes it will! There's an addon called 'Quote Colors' that restores the
traditional chevrons. I have it all documented, and if you are
interested I can dig it out to send to you (and anyone else who's
interested).

One slight snag it that it only officially works only up to something
like TB Version 3.1 (which must have been when David Cameron was still
in nappies!). However, this can (or certainly could) be fairly easily
overcome. Fresh installs of QC certainly worked up to TB versions in the
40s, and it is unaffected by subsequent version upgrades (I'm now on
V52.9.0).
>
>


Ian

===

I would like to have a go, so yes please!

[Ian Jackson]

In message <***@mid.individual.net>, Ophelia
<***@gmail.com> writes



>
>I would like to have a go, so yes please!
>
OK. I've found it. Will do a quick check on it, and post it direct.
--
Ian

[kat]

On 07/07/2018 17:37, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Fredxx"  wrote in message news:phqo7q$nvt$***@dont-email.me...
>
> On 07/07/2018 14:37, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Fredxx"  wrote in message news:phq5fm$vp1$***@dont-email.me...
>>
>> On 06/07/2018 16:04, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Omega"  wrote in message news:phnmqp$27u$***@dont-email.me...
>>>
>>> On 06/07/2018 12:56, Yellow wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:13:22 +1000, FMurtz <***@hotmail.com>
>>>> posted:
>>>>>
>>>>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate
>>>>> with pages and pages of headers with one interesting one every
>>>>> so often. What with posters posting bulk headers one after an
>>>>> other and the smattering of loons
>>>>
>>>> I use filters and my bozo bin and that cuts through 90% of the
>>>> crap.
>>>>
>>>> But why people want to destroy this still lively group when
>>>> usenet is now so fragile, only they can tell us.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have Eternal September and doesn't appear to have these
>>> filters/kill files you speak about unless I haven't looked hard
>>> enough.
>>>
>>> Till now I have never really wanted to filter out fellow posters
>>> as sometimes even the most seasoned idiot has something to say and sometimes
>>> entertaining anyway but must confess now, it's bloody
>>> irksome with some of our characters these days!
>>>
>>> Some very busy groups I belonged to years ago have now disappeared
>>> with lack of use and fear this will go the same way.
>>>
>>> omega
>>>
>>> ==
>>>
>>> I must admit that whenever I open a group (not just this one) I go
>>> down the names and mark as read any that I have no interest in
>>> reading.  Of those I do read, I read everything they post but don't
>>> always feel the need to comment.
>>>
>>> My filter does work but I find this easier and the filter is not
>>> always good.
>>
>> It looks you are posting through individual.net and using Live Mail
>> for your newsreader.
>>
>> Yes, I am:)
>>
>> I can recommend Thunderbird where you can filter out posts by named
>> individuals, or even whole topics and threads started by those
>> obsessed with say Brexit and who contribute nothing else to the
>> group.
>>
>> Thank you, but I don't only 'mark as read' posters, but also whole subjects in
>> which I have no interest.
>>
>> I think I might be getting a bit too old to learn  a load of new things like
>> Thunderbird.  I started out with Dos computers and I feel
>> I might have progressed enough:)
>>
>> If I started to get a lot of problems though, I might get back to you
>> for advice:)
>>
>> Thanks again:))
>
> First of all pleasure.
>
> I used to find Windows Live flaky and this was the main reason I moved
> to TB. The learning curve is not steep. TB has a semi-automated
> way/wizard of adding news servers and configuring email accounts.
>
> Plus few people here use your, now rather dated, client.
>
> ==
>
> I bought a Win10 computer and hated it:(  My kind husband took it off my hands
> and I bought a second hand one with Win 7 installed:))
>
> It is a bit annoying that it won't do chevrons, but I manage:)
>
>

Personally I would have loved to stick with XP (and OE). :-) Win10 isn't so bad,
but Win8 I wouldn't want at all. This pc is dual boot Win10/Win7, for various
reasons. I disliked Windows Live when I first tried it, but Thunderbird is OK.

[Yellow]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 13:20:44 +0100, Omega <***@last.com> posted:
>
> On 06/07/2018 12:56, Yellow wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:13:22 +1000, FMurtz <***@hotmail.com> posted:
> >>
> >> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with pages
> >> and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
> >> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
> >> smattering of loons
> >
> > I use filters and my bozo bin and that cuts through 90% of the crap.
> >
> > But why people want to destroy this still lively group when usenet is
> > now so fragile, only they can tell us.
> >
>
>
> I have Eternal September and doesn't appear to have these filters/kill
> files you speak about unless I haven't looked hard enough.

It is a function of your newsreader, not your usenet supplier.

I use gravity and it allows rules to delete posts and ignore threads as
well as scoring so you can rate posts you are likely to be interested in
reading.

I also have it set to highlight posts that are replies to mine, although
that is not 100% reliable.


> Till now I have never really wanted to filter out fellow posters as
> sometimes even the most seasoned idiot has something to say and
> sometimes entertaining anyway but must confess now, it's bloody irksome
> with some of our characters these days!

Too many posts are simply cross posted nonsense and I just dump them,
wholesale.


> Some very busy groups I belonged to years ago have now disappeared with
> lack of use and fear this will go the same way.

Some groups die through lack of use and some through what is happening
here, where idiots think it is fun to spam the group to buggery with
their rubbish so genuine posters give up.

[JNugent]

On 06/07/2018 13:20, Omega wrote:
> On 06/07/2018 12:56, Yellow wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:13:22 +1000, FMurtz <***@hotmail.com> posted:
>>>
>>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with pages
>>> and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
>>> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
>>> smattering of loons
>>
>> I use filters and my bozo bin and that cuts through 90% of the crap.
>>
>> But why people want to destroy this still lively group when usenet is
>> now so fragile, only they can tell us.
>>
>
>
> I have Eternal September and doesn't appear to have these filters/kill
> files you speak about unless I haven't looked hard enough.

They are a feature of the newsreading software, not the provider of the
news server.

Which application do you use?

[kat]

On 06/07/2018 18:17, JNugent wrote:
> On 06/07/2018 13:20, Omega wrote:
>> On 06/07/2018 12:56, Yellow wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:13:22 +1000, FMurtz <***@hotmail.com> posted:
>>>>
>>>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with pages
>>>> and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
>>>> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
>>>> smattering of loons
>>>
>>> I use filters and my bozo bin and that cuts through 90% of the crap.
>>>
>>> But why people want to destroy this still lively group when usenet is
>>> now so fragile, only they can tell us.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have Eternal September and doesn't appear to have these filters/kill
>> files you speak about unless I haven't looked hard enough.
>
> They are a feature of the newsreading software, not the provider of the news
> server.
>
> Which application do you use?

I would say, from the headers, Omega is using Thunderbird, which does a fine job
in removing vast swathes of junk, I find, with appropriate appropriate message
filters set up.

--
kat
>^..^<

[JNugent]

On 06/07/2018 21:26, kat wrote:
> On 06/07/2018 18:17, JNugent wrote:
>> On 06/07/2018 13:20, Omega wrote:
>>> On 06/07/2018 12:56, Yellow wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:13:22 +1000, FMurtz <***@hotmail.com> posted:
>>>>>
>>>>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with pages
>>>>> and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
>>>>> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
>>>>> smattering of loons
>>>>
>>>> I use filters and my bozo bin and that cuts through 90% of the crap.
>>>>
>>>> But why people want to destroy this still lively group when usenet is
>>>> now so fragile, only they can tell us.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have Eternal September and doesn't appear to have these filters/kill
>>> files you speak about unless I haven't looked hard enough.
>>
>> They are a feature of the newsreading software, not the provider of
>> the news server.
>>
>> Which application do you use?
>
> I would say, from the headers, Omega is using Thunderbird, which does a
> fine job in removing vast swathes of junk, I find, with appropriate
> appropriate message filters set up.

In that case, all he/she needs to do is have a look in the message menu,
and scroll down to "create filter from message", where plenty of option
are available.

[Omega]

On 06/07/2018 21:26, kat wrote:
> On 06/07/2018 18:17, JNugent wrote:
>> On 06/07/2018 13:20, Omega wrote:
>>> On 06/07/2018 12:56, Yellow wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:13:22 +1000, FMurtz <***@hotmail.com> posted:
>>>>>
>>>>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with pages
>>>>> and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
>>>>> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
>>>>> smattering of loons
>>>>
>>>> I use filters and my bozo bin and that cuts through 90% of the crap.
>>>>
>>>> But why people want to destroy this still lively group when usenet is
>>>> now so fragile, only they can tell us.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have Eternal September and doesn't appear to have these filters/kill
>>> files you speak about unless I haven't looked hard enough.
>>
>> They are a feature of the newsreading software, not the provider of
>> the news server.
>>
>> Which application do you use?
>
> I would say, from the headers, Omega is using Thunderbird, which does a
> fine job in removing vast swathes of junk, I find, with appropriate
> appropriate message filters set up.
>


Thank you Kat ... and may I thank you all through his post.

Not sure where the hell I was headed off mentioning E.S. but I
acknowledge, correct, the filtering is done from the newsreader.

Back to Kat, you are correct again, Thunderbird is my reader.

I did look at it one day and all looked very confusing [to me]. I'll
settle down and have another look. Might come back for some pointers.

omega

[kat]

On 07/07/2018 07:19, Omega wrote:
> On 06/07/2018 21:26, kat wrote:
>> On 06/07/2018 18:17, JNugent wrote:
>>> On 06/07/2018 13:20, Omega wrote:
>>>> On 06/07/2018 12:56, Yellow wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:13:22 +1000, FMurtz <***@hotmail.com> posted:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with pages
>>>>>> and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
>>>>>> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
>>>>>> smattering of loons
>>>>>
>>>>> I use filters and my bozo bin and that cuts through 90% of the crap.
>>>>>
>>>>> But why people want to destroy this still lively group when usenet is
>>>>> now so fragile, only they can tell us.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have Eternal September and doesn't appear to have these filters/kill
>>>> files you speak about unless I haven't looked hard enough.
>>>
>>> They are a feature of the newsreading software, not the provider of the news
>>> server.
>>>
>>> Which application do you use?
>>
>> I would say, from the headers, Omega is using Thunderbird, which does a fine
>> job in removing vast swathes of junk, I find, with appropriate appropriate
>> message filters set up.
>>
>
>
> Thank you Kat   ...  and may I thank you all through his post.
>
> Not sure where the hell I was headed off mentioning E.S. but I acknowledge,
> correct, the filtering is done from the newsreader.
>
> Back to Kat, you are correct again, Thunderbird is my reader.
>
> I did look at it one day and all looked very confusing [to me].  I'll settle
> down and have another look.  Might come back for some pointers.
>

Open a message from someone you don't want to read, click on the Message menu at
the very top of the application ( File Edit View Go Message etc,), scroll down
to Create Filter From Message ( near the bottom, above the Ignores ), little box
pops up, give the filter a name. You'll see it defaults to when the message is
from that person the message gets deleted. You never see anything from them,
though you might see replies to them. That's not always a bad thing, but there
are other options if you don't want to. Anyway, it's a simple start, and I lose
entire threads from certain idiots. I was away recently and using newstap on my
iPad, which didn't have filters set up, and I saw just what I was "missing" :-)

One thing to note is the filter applies just to that newsgroup, something else
that can be changed but which tends to work for me.

Another simple thing - if a thread gets too bad, or is uninteresting, just right
click on any message in it and choose Ignore Thread.


--
kat
>^..^<

[Fredxx]

On 07/07/2018 12:12, kat wrote:
> On 07/07/2018 07:19, Omega wrote:
>> On 06/07/2018 21:26, kat wrote:
>>> On 06/07/2018 18:17, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 06/07/2018 13:20, Omega wrote:
>>>>> On 06/07/2018 12:56, Yellow wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 14:13:22 +1000, FMurtz <***@hotmail.com>
>>>>>> posted:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with
>>>>>>> pages
>>>>>>> and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
>>>>>>> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
>>>>>>> smattering of loons
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I use filters and my bozo bin and that cuts through 90% of the crap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But why people want to destroy this still lively group when usenet is
>>>>>> now so fragile, only they can tell us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have Eternal September and doesn't appear to have these filters/kill
>>>>> files you speak about unless I haven't looked hard enough.
>>>>
>>>> They are a feature of the newsreading software, not the provider of
>>>> the news server.
>>>>
>>>> Which application do you use?
>>>
>>> I would say, from the headers, Omega is using Thunderbird, which does
>>> a fine job in removing vast swathes of junk, I find, with appropriate
>>> appropriate message filters set up.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you Kat   ...  and may I thank you all through his post.
>>
>> Not sure where the hell I was headed off mentioning E.S. but I
>> acknowledge, correct, the filtering is done from the newsreader.
>>
>> Back to Kat, you are correct again, Thunderbird is my reader.
>>
>> I did look at it one day and all looked very confusing [to me].  I'll
>> settle down and have another look.  Might come back for some pointers.
>>
>
> Open a message from someone you don't want to read, click on the Message
> menu at the very top of the application ( File Edit View Go Message
> etc,), scroll down to Create Filter From Message ( near the bottom,
> above the Ignores ), little box pops up, give the filter a name.  You'll
> see it defaults to when the message is from that person the message gets
> deleted.  You never see anything from them, though you might see replies
> to them.  That's not always a bad thing, but there are other options if
> you don't want to.  Anyway, it's a simple start, and I lose entire
> threads from certain idiots.  I was away recently and using newstap on
> my iPad, which didn't have filters set up, and I saw just what I was
> "missing" :-)
>
> One thing to note is the filter applies just to that newsgroup,
> something else that can be changed but which tends to work for me.
>
> Another simple thing - if a thread gets too bad, or is uninteresting,
> just right click on any message in it and choose Ignore Thread.

or simply press 'k' on the keyboard!

[BurfordTJustice]

So will you be starting a mod group and be the moderator?




"FMurtz" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F%B%C.511422$***@fx36.iad...
: Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with pages
: and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
: What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
: smattering of loons

[dolf]

-- MAYBE WE SHOULD DO SOME SOUL-SEARCHING THAT THIS EARTHQUAKE WAS BECAUSE
SOMEONE IS TRYING TO TOUCH THAT WHICH IS SACRED TO US? HEAR OUR PAIN, THEY
ARE NOT JEWS

(c) 2018 Dolf Leendert Boek, Revision: 5 July 2018

RAS MIKAERE ENOCH MC CARTY (***@HOTMAIL.CO.NZ) @ 0457 HOURS ON 5 JULY
2018: "Thanks Adolf For Your Kind Words.

Do You Actually Think That People Read Your Gibberish?

<http://www.exorcist.org.nz>
<https://www.facebook.com/rasmikaereenoch>

AT LEAST MY ARTICLES / POSTINGS ARE EASY TO READ.

YOURS TRAGICALLY IS A LOAD OF UN-ASSOCIATED VERY STRANGE BIZARRE
NONSENSICAL AUSTRALIAN STUPIDITY.

I KNOW AUSTRALIANS WHO PRESENT THEIR VIEWS IN A CONCISE MANNER --- SO WHY
CAN'T YOU BE LIKE THEM ?

REALLY ADOLF --- YOUR POSTING RESEMBLE THE RAMBLINGS OF A TRULY INSANE
PERSON. IF YOU ACTUALLY SPENT SOME TIME WRITING THEM AND MAKING THEM MAKE
SOME SENSE THEY MIGHT ACTUALLY WORK FOR YOU.

BUT AT THIS MOMENT, THEY LOOK LIKE INSANE GIBBERISH.

TAKE CARE ADOLF."

DOLF @ 1758 HOURS ON 5 JULY 2018: "IT IS YOUR POSTS WHICH ARE INCOHERENT
AND CONDEMNATORY WORDS OF NEO-NAZI HATRED ARE NOW A CURSE UPON YOUR OWN
HEAD AS PERVERSE DECEITFUL SOUL:

It has taken you 5 months to reply but we can see through the LIPSTICK ON A
PIG as being TYPICALLY ISLAMIC IDOLATRY which appears to be the nature of
your religious belief, whereas in response to this narrative sent to
various Jewish HOLOCAUST museums within Melbourne / Sydney and the MIKDASH
ULTRA-ORTHODOX JEWISH EDUCATION CENTRE within Jerusalem, the media response
was: "Lawmaker Yinon Azoulay (Shas) said Wednesday that Reform Jews 'are
not Jews' and blamed the minor quakes in the Galilee Wednesday morning on
the lobby to build an egalitarian prayer space in the Western Wall.

Speaking at a Knesset debate on the contested mixed-gender prayer space in
the Western Wall, Azoulay said: 'Today we heard there was some kind of
earthquake, maybe we should do some soul-searching that this earthquake was
because someone is trying to touch that which is sacred to us? Hear our
pain, they are not Jews.'"

<https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-ultra-orthodox-lawmaker-blames-earthquake-on-reform-jews-1.6244037>

AND ITS TIMESTAMP CONVEYS A FASCIST IDENTITY WHICH YOU ARE BY SELF IMPOSED
HAUGHTY PIETY FALSELY CONVEYING UPON ME:

#334 as [#40, #4, #200, #20, #10, #20, #40] = derek (H1870): {#1 as #224 %
#41 = #19} 1) way, road, distance, journey, manner; 1a) road, way, path;
1b) journey; 1c) direction; 1d) manner, habit, way; 1e) of course of life
(fig.); 1f) of moral character (fig.)

H3054@{
@1: Sup: 40 (#40); Ego: 40 (#40),
@2: Sup: 35 (#75); Ego: 76 (#116),
@3: Sup: 45 (#120 ***); Ego: 10 (#126), <-- *MAPPED* {#120 / #224 /
#288} *TO* *EGYPTIAN* *ANKH* / *ROMAN* *IMPERIAL* *EMPIRE* *GOVERNANCE*
*PROTOTYPES* #EIGHT: #120 / #360

@4: Sup: 50 (#170); Ego: 5 (#131),
@5: Sup: 54 (#224 ***); Ego: 4 (#135 ), <-- *ISLAMIC* PROTOTYPES {#345 /
#405 / #465} AS STOICHEION CONCEPTIONS OF EARTH, FIRE, AIR, WATER]
@6: Sup: 64 (#288 ***); Ego: 10 (#145),
@7: Sup: 23 (#311); Ego: 40 (#185),
Male: #311; Feme: #185
} // #509

T'AI HSÜAN CHING {POLAR OPPOSITIONS / INTERPLAY OF OPPOSITES} [4 BCE]:

UMBRA: #19 % #41 = #19 - Argument for Ethical Anarchism, Returning to
Simplicity; I-Ching: H57 - Compliance, Gentle Penetration/Wind, Ground,
Calculations; Tetra: 58 - Gathering In;

THOTH MEASURE: #19 - Oh Uammetu, who makest thine appearance at the Block;
*I* *COMMIT* *NOT* *ADULTERY* *WITH* *ANOTHER'S* *WIFE*.

#VIRTUE: Following (no. #19) means dispersing, but
#TOOLS: Massing (no. #59) means assembling.
#POSITION: With Ease (no. #23), the level and smooth, but
#TIME: With Difficulties (no. #79), the going up and down.
#CANON: #180

#509 as [#40, #400, #10, #5, #4, #10, #40] = yahad (H3054): {UMBRA: #5 as
#19 % #41 = #19} 1) (Hithpael) to become a Jew (in fact or in fraud),
become Judaised

REPLY #1 OF #4 AS REFUTATION OF RELIGIOUS IDOLATRY: "MACRON URGES FRENCH
YOUTH TO TAKE UP MAKEUP CLASSES"

<http://www.grapple369.com/docs/Cosmeticus.pdf>

REPLY #2 OF #4 AS REFUTATION OF RELIGIOUS IDOLATRY: "HYPOTEÍNOUSA: (rarely:
hypothenuse) TO HYPOTHESISE BY RATIOCINATION WITHIN MEASURED BOUNDS OF
DIVISION WITHOUT AN INCOMMENSURATE BIAS

<http://www.grapple369.com/docs/Hypoteinousa.pdf>

REPLY #3 OF #4 AS REFUTATION OF RELIGIOUS IDOLATRY: "YOU WILL BE GETTING
#168 - CONDEMNATION UPON THIS CENTENARY REMEMBRANCE / ARMISTICE DAY 11
NOVEMBER 2018!"

<http://www.grapple369.com/docs/Years%20Condemn.pdf>

REPLY #4 OF #4 AS REFUTATION OF RELIGIOUS IDOLATRY: "FACILITATING COGNITIVE
CONSONANCE AND AVOIDING DISSONANCE AS PERCEPTIONS OF REALITY"

<http://www.grapple369.com/docs/Reality.pdf>

- Dolf

Initial Post: 5 July 2018


FMurtz <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Has become almost unusable, extremely difficult to navigate with pages
> and pages of headers with one interesting one every so often.
> What with posters posting bulk headers one after an other and the
> smattering of loons
>



--


YOUTUBE: "The Meerkat Circus"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-7OuqWi4vQ>

SEE ALSO AS RELATIONSHIP: *INVALIDATING* {Perennial philosophy (HETEROS
{#390 - ROBBERS} v’s HOMOIOS {#391 - STEWARDS OF GOD’S HOUSE} THEORY OF
NUMBER) as universal of right and wrong...} *THE* *ORTHODOX* *AND* *ROMAN*
*CATHOLIC* *CHURCH'S* *CLAIM* {#390 as 1, #100, #80, #1, #3, #5, #200 as
harpax (G727): {#11 as #242} 1) rapacious, ravenous; 2) a extortioner, a
robber} *TO* *JUBILEE2000* *AS* *BEING* *DELUSIONAL* *AND* *FRAUDULENT*

Private “Saint Andrews” Street on the edge of the Central Business District
dated 16th May, 2000 - This report is prepared in response to a TP00/55 as
a Notice of an Application for Planning Permit

<http://www.grapple369.com/jubilee2000.html>

SEE ALSO: HYPOSTASIS as DAO OF NATURE (Chinese: ZIRAN) / COURSE (Greek:
TROCHOS) OF NATURE (Greek: GENESIS) [James 3:6]

Chinese HAN Dynasty (206 BCE - 220CE) Hexagon Trigrams to Tetragram
assignments proposed by Yang Hsiung (53BCE - 18CE) which by 4BCE
(translation published within English as first European language in 1993),
first appeared in draft form as a meta-thesis titled T'AI HSUAN CHING {ie.
Canon of Supreme Mystery} on Natural Divination associated with the theory
of number, annual seasonal chronology and astrology reliant upon the seven
visible planets as cosmological mother image and the zodiac.

It shows the ZIRAN as the DAO of NATURE / COURSE-trochos OF NATURE-genesis
[James 3:6] as HYPOSTATIS comprising #81 trinomial tetragrammaton x 4.5 day
= #364.5 day / year as HOMOIOS THEORY OF NUMBER which is an amalgam of the
64 hexagrams as binomial trigrams / 81 as trinomial tetragrammaton rather
than its encapsulated contrived use as the microcosm to redefine the
macrocosm as the quintessence of the Pythagorean [Babylonian] as binomial
canon of transposition as HETEROS THEORY OF NUMBER.

<http://www.grapple369.com/nature.html>

The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities No. 43 of Act 2006 defines
a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING” and the question is, if it is permissible to
extend this definition to be a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING AS A CONSCIOUS
REALITY OF HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] WHO IS INSTANTIATED WITHIN THE TEMPORAL
REALITY AS THEN THE CAUSE FOR REASONING AND RATIONALITY."

That my mathematical theoretical noumenon defines the meta-descriptor
prototypes which are prerequisite to the BEING of HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] as
EXISTENCE / *OUSIA*.

<http://www.grapple369.com/Grapple.zip> (Download resources)

After all the ENNEAD of THOTH and not the Roman Catholic Eucharist,
expresses an Anthropic Cosmological Principle which appears within its
geometric conception as being equivalent to the Pythagorean
TETRAD/TETRACTYS